Hi Hank,
One of the reasons the Indonesians have a reason to go fishing in Australian waters is because of the efforts made by Australian fishermen to conserve the fish numbers. For many years now, Austarlian fishermen have largely kept to a system of quotas, even now being in the process of voluntarily phasing out trawl and drag fishing, which depletes whole areas not only of the fish but the environment they need in order to reproduce. And they haven't done all this for anyone's benefit but there own.
Indonesia has millions (forget how many) people, and has fished out their waters by undisciplined ignorant wholesale takes. And often wastefully, too. By invading Australian waters they are using the disciplined control of others, whose efforts have largely kept the fish stocks high. Why should the prices Aussies pay for their fish in order to keep the stocks high be used to subsidise the undiscipled behaviour of another nation?
However, I do take your point about claiming an area by force without having produced anything on it. But are you saying now that no-one can own any area, only whatever they produce from it? So can I come and run some sheep on your property, since you cannot own your area, only what you produce? Given that one needs an area of land (or sea) to produce anything, I think that ownership of that basic infrastructure in order to produce has to be possible.
What do you think?
"What do you think?"
I think anyone who worships Terry Pratchett probably does not really understand the principles I'm talking about.
For example, how does one, "conserve the fish numbers," except by failing to fish? And these "Austarlian {sic} fisermen are "voluntarily" limiting their fishing. How environmental. And for their PC environmentalism, the Australian government thugs may "board" uninvited other people's fishing boats, simply because they do not agree with the Australian fisherman's view of how fishing ought to be done.
Therefore protectionism by force is OK to prevent, the "undisciplined ignorant wholesale takes," which means you believe it is alright to use force to prevent people from being undisciplined and ignorant, right?
Well, what can one expect of someone whose principles are learned from Terry Pratchett.
"So can I come and run some sheep on your property, since you cannot own your area."
This may be difficult for you, but real estate and the sea are a bit different. What I said was, "no one owns or has a right to control by force anything they have not earned." When someone works (earns) or buys real estate (with money they have earned) that gives them the right to control it entirely.
Thank you for the comments. You think, apparently governments sometimes have a right to initiate force; I dont.
Hank