i dont know if worldwide tuna demand if ouptacing the birth rates of oceans of tuna or not.

the fisherman may not be shooting anything. i dont think that tuna are a fish that can be aquacultured as well as tillapia.???

Regarding the rest:
STFU, greg

http://www.BlueFinHosting.com will donate 10%* of their yearly net to help fund finding a solution to truly sustainable tuna farming.

But unfortunately the rest is absolute rubbish:-

- It wasn’t administered by the local lord at all, let alone harshly, unless he happened by coincidence to be the magistrate, and even then only when someone (usually one of the other commoners) brought a violator before him – and then, he was constrained by law, custom, and the need to keep his office.

- It was not called the commons [sic - that's the plural; there were many commons, and each commoner only had rights on his own common] then because the common man (ie peasantry), and not the rulership, was permitted to use it for their own personal gain. Commoners got called that because each had rights on a common; the lowest of the low didn’t even have that. Terms like “the common man” arose from that. Those rights were property rights, even though they were usually inalienable.

- It was not (usually) private property that was opened up for limited use by others. It was the private property of the commoners themselves (under the king, of course), but which they only owned in the restricted way their rights parcelled up. In general, the local lord had no rights on it at all; the Enclosure of the Commons was all about taking commoners’ property rights away for the first time, not about repossessing anything. There were exceptional cases that were a bit different where commons were more nearly normally owned, as we would understand them: “Lammas Lands” were parcelled out individually for the peasants to raise crops on in certain seasons, and then (typically at Lammas, hence the name) became ordinary common land for the commoners’ animals to graze on during the remainder of the year; and, certain commons could be grazed on by droves of cattle being driven to distant markets, at certain seasons, if the drovers paid a “Thistle Rent” (so called because that was about all that was left by then) to the owner of those rental rights, typically a local lord unless he had sold them off – as sometimes happened to rental rights in general.

It does help to check out some of the historical material.

Originally, the concept of a tragedy of the commons was used to analyze a hypothetical medieval pasture, where each herder could let as many cattle graze as he wanted… The tragedy of the commons in pastureland was solved by the enclosure movement, i.e., by assigning property rights to individual parcels of land.

No, that didn’t solve it. It was only a hypothetical, remember? In real life the hypothetical had already been headed off by customary restrictions on use. It only ever started to become a problem where those eroded – which could be caused by the advance of the enclosure movement, taking away those customary privileges and obligations ahead of taking over the land.

so how often do they have to travel through it over how many years to stake a claim in your mind? what exactly is “someone places ownership”?

feeding a dog randomly is not an embedded system dependent upon the land that feeds humans. hunter and gatherers have every right to sustain themselves with their labor as someone who plants radishes year after year in the same plot.

your train of thought could and has been used to dispossess every indigenous population on the face of the earth.

the right to self ownership IS the right to what we produce with our labor whether we plant or harvest what the earth already provides. private property rights are built on this premise, they don’t trump it.

It’s all a thought experiment run wild