The first question anyone asks about creating a new state is, “Where will it be?” To answer this, let’s heed the advice given to entrepreneurs: find someone with a problem and get in front of him with a solution.

Which regions have a problem? The First World countries do not have a pressing one. Although they have not achieved the level of freedom that Objectivists advocate, their population is frogs in slowly heated water—unaware of the danger until it is too late, too used to the status quo to support any radical changes.

The immigration policy of a rights-protecting state must uphold the principle of the Presumption of Innocence. This state should maintain open borders, allowing individuals to enter, live, and work freely. Invariably, it will attract significant Muslim immigration in search of greater freedoms.

The sanctity of individual rights requires that nonconsensual physical force be prohibited. Yet, there are Muslims who want to enforce Islam through such force. How can this threat be addressed?

A society built on individual rights allows anyone to enter, live, and work freely. The Presumption of Innocence means immigrants cannot be stopped at the border for interrogation. However, open immigration can introduce undesirable baggage — collectivist ideas that undermine freedom.

A government rooted in individual rights must respect free speech and free thought of all people in its country. It cannot dictate which ideas are good or bad, nor can it target people for holding dissenting views, as was done with persecuted heretics throughout history. How, then, can such a society guard against the rise of collectivism—an ideology that places the group above the individual and disregards individual rights?