Should the wilderness be out of a state's jurisdiction?

So you can plant weed, traffic with weapons, and kill somebody but if and only if you are in the wilderness?

Sounds good.

>huns
>mongols

>>133341236
Yeah what's wrong with that? The state can't effectively govern over it anyway so why the pretence?

Remember how new the concept of absolute control over a nation's territory is in historic terms. IOW It's really fucking new.

File: mm.jpg (495KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1024x768px

>>133340911

These Rothschild satanic child sacrificing ADRENOCHROME PRODUCING fuckers.

ROTHSCHILD LEAKS

>>133339446

>>133341311
>wind
>books

can you try to say something actually coherent next time
>>133341544
why do this. fucking why.

>>133341600
>british education
you know better
come on

>>133341856
If you're making a value judgement, you have to give a slight hint about whether you think those you mentioned are good or bad, not that they exist, because we know they did and that they lived in the wilderness. So is the wilderness a good thing because the huns or mongols could operate out of a state's control? If that's what you're saying, then fine, but it's not immediately clear.

>>133342017
why the fuck would you deliberately allow lawlessness within your own state? seed your own destruction?
not everyone is as depressed as you, umbrella

>>133340911
So huge companies can go to a small city or village, offer money and then can polute as much as they want? No, thank you.

>>133341236
Sounds like Runescape

That would be fine but like all libertarian ideals it doesnt work in the modern day >>133341361 the reason that happened was because they literally didnt have the capability to enforce it, you dont want degenerate shit. We dont have the 90% puritan population we had in 1776, which is why libertarian ideals work for the first 50 years of this country's existence.

>>133342494
You're saying the entire nation would be destroyed because of a region where the state is not effectively in control. Well that's not true, fucktard, because that's basically how it works today, yet the nations we live in somehow keep going.
>>133343695
Now we're starting to ask the interesting questions.
Huge companies don't tend to operate out of large cities. You know why? Huge companies depend on huge infrastructure. That's why you *never* see any company/organisation outside of military operate in lawless zones. Small cities and villages are 2 different things. Villages won't ever get much in the way of industry. Small cities could be exploited but after a short period of time, a small city becomes a medium city and eventually the kind of shit a huge company thought it could get away with will be met with protest from the people they wanted to exploit (if you're somewhere other than China that is).
>>133344797
I agree with what you're saying, I'm kind of hoping this modern era ends and ends fast and ends badly for the kikes and the people supporting their vision for the world. We need to end this idea of a stupid fucking government who can't even efficiently govern over cities thinking they would do any better to govern over wilderness.