Confessions of a "book club purist" on principal. Also, a bit more on immigration and borders.

Today I was watching The Rubin Report while nursing myself from not feeling 100% and ran across a term I have never heard before. That term was "book club purist" and it was surprising to hear it from a person whom I have often considered very reasonable. It was used to say that it was unreasonable to support the protection of individualism/individual rights via the non-initiation of force. That there was other things the government needs to do including being Nationalistic, That you need to take care of The Nation as a collective. I find this very odd for someone that has been an ex-candidate for the Libertarian Party of Canada. The person I am speaking of is Lauren Southern.

As someone whom is anti-collectivism in all its forms the idea of a libertarian whom is OK with collectivizing nation over individuals, and country over the person actually makes me roll my eyes. Followed by making me cringe and then have pause. I thought it was quite odd for her to make it seem like people whom were for the NIFP or the individual was anti-reality in some way. She made it seem like the County and Nations role is more than just to protect individuals. More than just centrally making sure that Objective Rule of Law exists and that NIFP/ZAP/NAP is enforced. More than just the defense of individuals and their rights, That somehow the Nation has rights when it does not.

Only individuals have rights and the sole nature of a moral and legally just government is to protect the rights of those individuals. The proper functions of a properly moral and just government is the courts, cops and defense from external threats usually through a military. The only moral way for it to exist is to exist on the basis of serving the individuals in the protection of said individuals. The only just way to do that is to be based on voluntary funding and the non-initiation of infringement of rights AKA NIFP/ZAP/NAP. Taxation breaks an individuals rights and is initiating harm on individuals. In other words I am a "book club purist." I would be identified as such under Lauren's rules and I would proudly wear that label if it is what it is.

This outcome is a logical outcome from the underlying individualism which underpins the entire idea of freedom itself. Freedom means nothing if the individual means nothing. Individualism, individual rights and individual thinking is The Trinity of Liberty; a term coined by The Objective Standard's Craig Biddle. It all comes back the individual and individualism vs collectivism. This is not to dismiss general trends either or that groups do exist. Or that statistics can and do show that certain people tend to be different ways. Nor does this mean dismissing evolutionary psychology as some Objectivist do. Nor does this mean biological determinism is wrong either if it in fact is right. It means that those individuals that make up those groups in themselves as individuals have individual minds. Have individual person-hood and this individual has rights.

This means that if you deny individualism at a fundamental level you are cutting off the legs on which freedom stands. If you place any group as having rights or worth above the individuals in the group on a person to person basis that is not going to be able to give a consistent defense of ones rights. The real culture war is not gays vs straights or men vs women, but, individualism (individual worth) vs collectivism (sacrificing ones worth and mind to an nonexistent hive mind,) This is the real philosophical war and cultural fight. I am an individualist. I am anti-collectivism in all its forms and I will say that unabashedly.

That does not mean I am against co-operation or being social. That does not mean I am against working in groups to get things done. That does mean the individual always comes first. Each of us individually as humans have individual worth and protecting that is what is important. The group has no right only the individuals inside of it. Remove the individuals and the group does not exist. I am a "club book purist." As I am against the idea of Nations superseding peaceful individuals in anyway. Thus I am anti-Nationalism as well. Whether it be economical or otherwise. It is a culture of individualism, individual thinking and individual responsibility based on peaceful living that needs to be saved. Not any culture of any specific ethnicity or Country persay.

Canadian Values are good and should be kept, yes, but, not because they come from Canada. Due to them being values that contain within them a history of things like rule of law and due process. Things like being able to be peaceful with your neighbor. If it was not Canada, but, some other Country that had values such as these and our local values were those of barbarians there would be no reason for some Nationalistic pride nor defense of our Country. We would be ashamed or should be ashamed and welcome people with enlightened values to be here instead. It is not due to the Nation, but, the Canadians. The individuals in the Country that the values are what they are. Individuals with values. Not because Nations are great or a Country because it exists is great.

I do not think my ideas will be put into practice anytime soon, but, that does not mean one should drop their ideas. My idea of a just and moral government is the one I lay out above. Anything else is not moral. However, we live in the real world and this I can agree with Lauren on. We do need to do what we can within the scope of reality as it exists. This does not mean we should be championing Nationalism though as against some Ghost called Globalism. Which is just extending Free Trade worldwide.

I am for both protecting us from dangers from outside the borders that do exist. As well as leaving the borders open to total unilateral free trade with the world into and out of the borders. I am a Globalist in the best sense of the word. I am Pro-Global Capitalism and I am pro a future where Nations protect the individual citizens, but, do not tell them whom they can or cannot sell to or from. Provided all parties are not committing criminal acts and not harming others. Someone in Canada should be able to sell things and buy things from anywhere in the world they can afford to buy/sell with.

Equally someone whom is not connected to criminal activity or terrorist groups should be able to travel anywhere they want for any reason they want full stop. If someone in the US wants to hire someone from another Country to work it is their private property and they get to control whom is allowed on it not the government. However, we do have a real threat in radical Islam. We are at War with a horrid ideology as Trump stated in his RNC speech. I agree with doing something to finally squash the threat and end this War for good. That does not mean that you can extend the treatment of a known threat to the treatment of all immigrants. (AKA Mexicans or any one else) Nor should you treat peaceful immigrants the same as the non-peaceful.

I am for anyone being able to cross the border that is deemed not to be a criminal nor a terrorist threat of some kind. This means the border of any Country in the West. That does not mean I support the way the mass immigrations have been dealt with either. That is immigration from an area that is a hotbed of terrorism without hardly any checking on them at all. You do not do that when you are at war with people in that region it is sacrificial and self-mutilating. I both think we are being pussies when it comes to the threat of Islam, but, also think as an individualist on this issue as well. People whom are attached to being criminal or sympathize with terrorist groups should be dealt with. Peaceful people should be left alone and once checked be given the means to have free movement around wherever they wish to go.

Illegal immigrants whom are not engaging in activities which are harming others or their property should be transitioned to being legal immigrants. Whereas illegals whom are committing crimes should be dealt with accordingly. Illegals with links to terrorist sympathizing views should also be dealt with accordingly. That does not mean you turn The West into Police States either. You do not sacrifice freedom for security without becoming a surf and with the existence of the filthy luger of taxation we are all surfs enough already as it is. What needs to happen is a constitutional and freedom compatible way of dealing with immigration. That is both principled on freedom as well as taking into account the world as it is. However, you cannot do anything that sacrifices freedom for the sake of reality.You can go in the direction of the ideal, but, never away from it. Or else you have given up on the ideas to begin with.