Deep-blue,
"Its easier to pick pre-trained over-sea's people than to invest in the white Australians. The government see's no value in a people that would rather party-on, than getting educated."

Australian's are actually quite hard working, with about 50 hrs per week being the average.

It is not that possible to go beyond that 50 hrs per week without sacrificing family-life, or what we call family-life in a feminist society.

The lack of skills is based on an archaic education system that places little emphasis on developing something, and much more emphasis on taking as much from the taxpayer as possible.

Grim
They were either owned by ‘the public’ meaning the state e.g. bison, or unowned with government preventing private ownership e.g. marine species.

Bison are a classic example. Bison and cattle are almost the same species. Yet while bison numbers dwindled to near extinction, cattle numbers rose to untold levels – on the same lands and in the same period! The difference obviously wasn’t in the nature of the beast. It was that bison were owned by the government, and cattle were privately owned.

Aristotle explains why: “The property of all is the property of none.” What private farmer would kill one of his cows just to take the tongue and leave the rest to waste?

Trying to solve the tragedy of the commons by *expanding* common ownership is a recipe for tragic waste and environmental destruction.

“As to resource ownership, are you saying you believe BHP, Rio et al., would, if they owned their mines outright instead of leasing them from we the people, immediately cut back on production for the sake of future generations?”

(Miners don’t lease their lands from “us the people”, they lease them from the state. If you think these are the same thing, try taking possession of your aliquot share and see what happens.)

If we have a moral obligation not to use a resource for the sake of future generations, then obviously those future generations will be under the same obligation to still future generations.

On the one hand, if that is so, then the resource may not be used, ever.

On the other hand:
“Once we grant any amount of use to the depletable resource, we have to discard the robbery-of-the-future argument and accept the individual preferences of the market. There is then no more reason to assume that the market will use the resources too fast than to assume the opposite [i.e. deliberately holding resources off the market for speculative purposes]. The market will tend to use resources at precisely the rate that the consumers desire.” Rothbard – Man, Economy and State: http://mises.org/books/mespm.pdf at p.499 The Depletion of Natural Resources