20 votes

Is Julie Borowski an Anarchist? Part 1

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Haters Gonna Hate!


She is kinda annoying in this

She is kinda annoying in this video.. just answer the question... how do you not know if you are a libertarian or an anarchist?

I was ready to strangle the way she danced around the questions... she is smart enough to know what he was asking, so answer already...OMG!! I expected more from her...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Jan Helfeld's picture

I will schedule some debates

I agree. Discussing your political theory is good and useful so I will schedule some debates.

Jan Helfeld

I don't even think you need

I don't even think you need to debate her. Just have her answer the questions. They were not that hard, and she knows you, so she should have answered.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Jan ...

Since 2007 on various forums the strong opinionated anarchists and limited statists have engaged in debates. These kind of ideas were alien to the younger generation of Ron's supporters. Ask any of them, they say they didn't know anything about anything politically until Ron Paul.

To put young people on the spot who have really only been introduced to ideas of freedom should be done with consideration. Clearly there is a difference between someone like Julie who has been exposed to the philosophy of non-aggression versus some congressman acting as a wise overlord without any guiding principles. A wise overlording legislator allegedly has a duty under oath to protect citizens by constraining government to constitutions whereas a private individual has no such obligation.

There is nothing wrong with saying ones ideal being voluntaryism. It is a great ideal. However, do you really expect Julie to argue the case for voluntaryism and it's minutia? I am not saying she is incapable just pointing out if you look at her work it is not focused on expanding philosophical thought or philosophical writings. Even in your interview she stated multiple times she is interested on practical goals to move things in the direction of liberty.

A lot of people are like that. Some might take time to read a little Rothbard, Mises, or works of other intellectuals while thinking this idea sounds great or that one not so great but many do not take the time to read.

Here are a couple suggestions to help break the ice and warm up your interviewee:

Do you agree anyone can initiate violence at anytime?
Do you agree there is no perfect solution to prevent anyone from initiating violence?
As far as practical or political solutions for people to remedy the initiation of violence do you lean towards voluntaryism, limited government, socialism, fascism, corporatism, or other?

Sometimes it is just about how you approach it and I think if you set up your questions to average joe private individuals with an atmosphere of how would you try to solve the impossible instead of coming across as going for the juggler someone like a Julie would be more conversational. Regarding officials ... keep breaking their balls because like I said above they have an alleged duty and obligation. There is no excuse for an ignorant official.

My guess is, like most

My guess is, like most politically awake and educated libertarians, Julie Borowsky doesn't really need to discuss much further to be comfortable and confident in her perfect understanding of the political theory she has chosen. Especially not on a taped interview which could be used against her in her attempts to bridge the gaps between the libertarian-leaning republicans and the neocons so we can see a Ron Paul-esk person achieve political power some day.

I might suggest if you really want to know what her political views are without any of the self-defense mechanisms she used in this interview, try talking to her without a tape rolling. I'm sure she'd be more than happy to discuss her actual belief's when she's not worried about it showing up in an attack ad some day.

You didnt answer my question, Jan...

Are you scared of exposing yourself to Socratic dialogue?


Great plan Brian! Lets arm

Great plan Brian! Lets arm the main-stream media with a soundbite of Julia saying "I'm an anarchist" so that she can never win a political race or help slow down the march of big government.

Julie is vastly smarter than you, that is why she managed to avoid falling into Jan's "hypocrite trap," and avoid destroying her political future at the same time. If you can't deduce what she meant by "voluntary society," than perhaps you should strangle yourself instead.

If anything, this interview demonstrated once again that libertarians are smarter than other people; as every politician I've ever seen Jan interview came out looking like an idiot (and rightly so, I do love Jan). Julie came out looking like a genius.

No, rather let's pretend we

No, rather let's pretend we are something we are not... i.e let's say whatever necessary to get elected.. yeah,. thats the ticket...

Wait, Julie is running for office?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

She didn't say anything of

She didn't say anything of the sort. She said right out of the gates she preferred a "Volunteer society." What do you want? A neon sign? Do you not know what a Volunteerist is?

I have no idea if Julia means to run for anything. However if she ever did, and there was an interview where she said; "I'm an anarchist" she would be torn apart. That's the sad reality of our political system and our government-propaganda news. Political power is like a gun. Just because you don't have one, doesn't mean you can't be killed by one.

To take political power, you have to convince thousands of uneducated, frightened collectivists to vote for you. Ideas like shrinking government, personal responsibility and freedom scare these people. Does it seem immoral to you to "sneak" into office by not announcing that you don't believe in the authority of the gang we call government? Well to me, it seems "immoral" that these drooling idiots have the power to fill out a little piece of paper every few years and rob my children blind by voting to extract my property and prosperity so they can have free stuff.

I have absolutely 0 guilt about pretending to be a "republican" in order to gain political power so I can dismantle the state. Zero. As far as I'm concerned, this is self defense, and if Jan was grilling me if I was an anarchist and I had any plans to maybe run for political office, I can only HOPE I would be as savvy as Julie was.

Ron Paul is also a

Ron Paul is also a voluntarist, but that doesn't mean he is an anarchist. You can be a voluntarist and a libertarian at the same time. Anarchy to me is ridiculous. Sounds good in theory but really will never work in a practical sense. Just look at the buddhist in China who were without Government or the tribes in Africa during the 1600/1700s.

We just have different views on how to go about it. You want no state. I want small limited state.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

For governments to exist they

For governments to exist they must tax. There is no such thing as a voluntary tax. All taxes are levied under the threat of force for those who refuse to comply. Even a consumption tax as the merchant has no choice; he must apply the tax to his goods/services under threat of force by the state.

You cannot in any way, shape or form have a government which is voluntary. I invite you to give me a single example of how a government could exist without violating our rights to life, liberty and property. At best you can argue, like Jefferson, that governments are a necessary evil which, when kept well in check provide more benefits than harm. However history will prove over and over that these benefits are short lived, but the harm which inevitably follows is cataclysmic in costs of human suffering and death.

I will admit that a stateless society was in the past, a near impossible proposition due to the threat that other governments posed to those without a ruling gang. However as we enter the age of the internet and interconnecting technology which can bring the entire world together in friendly trade and the sharing of information, I believe that a stateless society where we depend on large gangs who monopolize force to protect us from other gangs is not only likely, its inevitable.

Governments are an outdated concept of a barbaric age. Already they have been replaced by banks and corporations and are nothing more than a public relations illusion. Enforcers for criminal gangs. Capitalism, competition and free trade are all we need. We no longer need blood thirsty gangs with monopoly power over force.

Also, lets not pretend to know what Ron Paul's ideal society is. I also pretend to be a minarchist in order to wrest political power away from the collectivists actively trying to destroy my freedom.

RP made it quite clear in his

RP made it quite clear in his exit speech from congress that he is an voluntarist- That the limited government formed by the Constitution and bill of rights have failed. He is an anarchist that believes in unlimited voluntary freedom for the individual. If you want to create an state-like entity you are free to do so but you cannot levy a fine or use violence or the threat of violence on someone else for not taking part in YOUR experiment.


27:25 and forward had me struck with awe the first time I heard it and often I go back and listen too it because of the pure beauty of words like these coming from a politician.

I recommend listening to the entire speech for a full context

Sweet. I figured as much,

Sweet. I figured as much, but its nice to hear it in words.

It goes to show, this isn't a statement you make on record if you ever want to hold or maintain public office. So its no surprise that Julie would avoid giving Jan the sound-bite he was after.

Well... I disagree, I hope

Well... I disagree, I hope that people can speak for what they believe in. Like RP when he was in office had sworn to protect and uphold the constitution and did that to the point that he could. Then that he in fact might not believe that it is morally correct or workable in the long run is a different question. He worked within the framework of the constitution as a politician but spread the word of liberty with his voice. These are the people that we need. Not Julie's who cannot, or will not, express her opinion because of fear of repercussion. That is weak in my eyes. More RP less rp

But then again, I am not the type who worries about being politically correct or the one who things people should worry about being politically correct. I speak from the heart and if some people have a problem with it then fuck'em.

You just provided the exact

You just provided the exact same example for 2 different people, said it was okay when Ron Paul did it, but not Julie.

Ron Paul never once went on record during his political career and said he was a volunteerist who didn't believe in the state. He did this AFTER he left congress and would no longer be in politics. Had Jan interviewed Dr. Paul while he was in Congress, there is no WAY he would have admitted this because it would have destroyed his political career.

Or you could say it like this: That Julie Borowsky may not, in fact believe that it (Constitution) is morally correct or workable in the long run is a different question. (S)He (wants to) work within the framework of the constitution as a politician but spread the word of liberty with (her) voice. These are the people that we need.

You say that you hope that people can speak for what they believe in. Well they can't, not if they ever want to be able to help reign in the power of the state by being elected. And all the hoping in the world isn't going to change a damn thing. If you want people to be able to say what they believe in, then you had better support people like Julie in their effort to wrest political power away from the oligarchs so that we can dismantle the state's grip on us. Trying to get a sound-bite of her saying she is an anarcho-capitalist does not help... at all. Its the opposite of help.

Even many libertarians who are politically awake are still terrified of the thought of loosing their precious state. Its insane and illogical, and its one of the last false paradigms of brainwashing to leave our bodies as we purge ourselves of the illusions the state has indoctrinated us with. But if even Ron Paul is an an cap, that tells you something. the NAP and individualism must eventually lead to a stateless society, because it is the only way for humans to organize without the use of coercion on one another.

Ron Paul has all through-out

Ron Paul has all through-out his tenure spoken about liberty, which equals self-ownership. While I could agree that he uses some word-smithing to avoid some of the consequences of liberty on government he has not, from my perspective, been non-truthful. He has made a commitment to the constitution while in office, to try his best to spread the message of the constitution, something he did very well. If the constitution would have been followed I don't think there would have been much of a problem between the USA and liberty. The problem is what happens when the people abandons the constitution and such there is no liberty.

I do see your point though and why you feel i am being unjust. I just feel that it is poo-poo'ing the issue. The issue is that Julie could not answer the question, or to answer it with a caveat, as a person. She has not made a commitment to the constitution as far as I know. I can personally see several ways to answer the question from my perspective without killing him/herself in todays political climate.

Perhaps my answer will be non-satisfactory to you it is the one I have time to give right now. It's Saturday night right now and I have more pressing issues in front of me. Have a good weekend.

Its unsatisfactory because

Its unsatisfactory because Julie absolutely answered the question quite clearly without arming anyone with a sound-bite. She said clear as a bell, right from the outset that she believes in a "Voluntary Society." To a politically awake person who understands the NAP and Individualism, this is the same as saying she's an anarcho-capitalist. After all, there is no such thing as a voluntary government (other than self governance). However as a sound-bite, its harmless to her as not 1 person in 10,000 would have any idea what it meant, and to the average sheep voter, its impossible to demonize those words.

Anarchist is to Volunteerist what Isolationist is to Non-interventionist. The media doesn't care what you mean, they only care about how they can twist what you "say" into something that can destroy you.

Julie is brilliant and was perfectly honest.

Government is good in theory

..but it always grows larger and larger until it collapses, with lots of death and destruction in the process.

She doesn't want to go on

She doesn't want to go on record saying: "Yes, I am an anarchist."

My guess? She probably is entertaining the idea of running for something and knows that such a statement would potentially destroy her chances. Smart.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know her political position. She answered quite clearly. That doesn't mean it would in any way be smart for her to arm her future opposition with the sound-bites they need to turn the sheeple voters against her.

The only way to dismantle political power is to take it first. Hard to do that if you are on record saying you are an anarchist.

You rock Julie.

she said "voluntaryist society"

That pretty much translates to a society in which all services are paid for voluntarily. That means no coercive monopoly on the provision of security and, thus, no government.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

That's ridiculous. You can

That's ridiculous. You can have a voluntary society with government. Stating the contrary over and over and over, and ignoring anyone who disagrees, does not make you right. Sorry, kid.

only if you have unanimous consent

Good luck with that, kid. You can also have voluntary communism, if everyone agrees to it. And, in fact, people have pulled it off on a small scale of about 100 people. For any group larger than that, you are not going to get unanimous consent. Thus, the government will not be voluntary.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

Anarchy requires unanimous

Anarchy requires unanimous consent, not government.

Your arguments are all so weak and intellectually dishonest.

In what way does a stateless

In what way does a stateless society based on the non-aggression principal require unanimous consent? In an an-cap society you can literally do anything you want other than commit a crime against another individual by depriving them of their right to life, liberty and property unjustly.

You could be a Nazi, a Communist or a Capitalist. You could surround yourself with people just like you and goose step around chanting about Hitler if that's what floats your boat. You could hate Jews, hate gays, or love Jesus. Rent hookers, do drugs, or forbid them from entering your property. There is no unanimous consent needed save the most base and obvious restriction of not initiating force against others. Is not hurting other people a difficult notion for us to agree on? Do we really want people around who cannot agree not to hurt other people unjustly? Exactly what sort of people are you worried would not consent to non-aggression?

Do you even understand what unanimous consent means? Governments put a gun to your head and force you into a cage for opting out of their control. Do you know any business owners that do this when you decide not to buy their product, or go with their competitor?

Anarchy obviously requires

Anarchy obviously requires unanimous consent, because if people decide to form a coercive state they will do so and anarchy offers no way of stopping them. You say that you cannot deprive people to their right to live, liberty, and property, but that is simply untrue. In anarchy, you can. The entire point of a good government is to stop those very things.

Listing many things one can do does not mean they have freedom. That is utterly fallacious, and reminiscent of statist logic. If you cannot protect your freedom, you have none. Government provides teeth for protecting freedom.

Yes, I obviously understand what unanimous consent means. Do you understand what intellectual dishonesty is? Yer doin it agin.

Can you do anything other than INSIST that governments are evil and bad? Do you have any evidence? ANYTHING AT ALL? All you are doing right now is throwing out ad hominems, loaded questions, red herrings, and most repetitively, causal oversimplification, and insisting that you are right about what government is. I'm sorry, but you are wrong about what government is. The English language disagrees with you.

Ever heard of a security

Ever heard of a security company? They protect people's rights in exchange for money. It does what a government promises to do, only it actually has to please its customers and make money or else it will be put out of business by its competitor. If it displeases people, it can be fired and replaced. There will always be criminals, but when you institute government, you create them and give them guns and arbitrary power over you.

Toward the end you asked me for any evidence that governments are evil and bad. That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard a human say. Are you @#$%ing kidding me!? I can't think of an example of a government that isn't evil and bad in the history of the world. Every single government ever instituted has raped natural rights and devoured liberty. The really big ones start devouring humans once the liberty is gone. Democide is the single largest cause of unnatural human death in the history of the world... and that's just government's killing their own people.

Do you really need an example of a government that is "evil and bad?" Do I really need to point out that governments shoveling political dissidents, foreigners or those deemed somehow unwanted by the state into reeducation camps, gas chambers and firing squads is evidence of the evil of governments? Or how about governments spying on everything you type or say, waging wars of aggression, assassinating women and children with flying death bots and inflating away the fruits of your labor with a printing press?

Even Thomas Jefferson & the founding fathers couldn't keep the corruption out of this Republic. They had lost the dream of a small beneficial government before they even went to their graves, and you expect the mindless sheep watching American Idol to keep it in check today!? You minarchists are a naive crowd to say the least.

If your society is based on the non-aggression principal, when a group of people decides to institute a "government" which will use coercion to force personal property from others by the barrel of a gun, they would be viewed as criminals in violation of the law, and one of many defense contractors would be happy to carry out their purpose in dealing with these criminals. Of course its very possible that the group of people who want to violate our rights will succeed and win in the end. If they ever do, we'd wind up where we are now with gangs ruling the world and stupid sheep believing they are somehow good and justified.

I'm sure you'll come back with more garbage about intellectual dishonesty as though I'm saying something I don't believe, but you have no defense. Let me prove it by turning it around and asking you: Can you provide me an example of a government that is good and just who doesn't violate people's rights? Let me tighten the criteria, make it one which has been in operation for over 5 years. Good luck.

While I disagree with that

While I disagree with that notion, I certainly can't prove it. What we do know, however, is that every single anarchy ever instituted has turned into a government. Don't try to shift the burden of proof. Anarchy is an impossibility, and until you prove that, there is absolutely no reason for me to even attempt to prove that government is "better". It's like saying that a golden goose is better than a regular goose. Sure, but it's not bloody real.

Anarchy is an impossible pipe dream that will never happen because it requires unanimous consent. That is the entire problem with anarchy.

It would be amazing if we could all just live in a virtual reality and create our own worlds and have everything we ever wanted, but it's unrealistic like anarchy, so I don't go around posing it as a serious solution to world problems because it is not one. Maybe someday it will be, but it is so far out that it is unreasonable to pose it as a solution rather than simply as a philosophical discussion.

If your society is based on the non-aggression principal, when a group of people decides to institute a "government" which will use coercion to force personal property from others by the barrel of a gun, they would be viewed as criminals in violation of the law

Law requires government, my silly word twisting friend.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Now we are getting somewhere. You acknowledge a stateless society based on the non-aggression principal is better than governments, but feel it is unattainable. Guess what; me too. At least, for now. That's why I, like most an-caps work toward a small republic. Its also why Julie probably doesn't want to go on record saying she's an an-cap.

But then you say something like: "Law requires government."

The only valid law is common law which is based on natural rights. They are always there, weather we try to subvert them with force or not. These laws do not require government to exist because they are only an idea which is spreading. Example: I have the rule of law on my property; it goes like this: No depriving me and my family of life, liberty, and property. Offenders will be punished accordingly. I don't ask for permission to have this law in effect. And there's only one gang of bandits who routinely violate my law and get away with it. The state. They get away with it because they have overwhelming force and I can't physically stop them. Nor can I gather together enough allies to stop them(Though if Bundy is any example, the day is fast approaching when I can). So I submit in whichever ways I absolutely must while subverting their efforts in whatever ways I can. Either way, It's not voluntary.

You say voluntary an-cap society requires unanimous consent, but really, it only requires overwhelming consent, just like anything else. Bundy's ranch is a great example. What if these militia groups standing up for Bundy continue to grow and the state fades. What have you got? A private army of volunteers who believe in freedom and will rise up to stop criminals who use force. Imagine, humans who VOLUNTEER to stand up for the principal of liberty against collectivists who believe in force. No government to lead them or compel them to stand up for Bundy, just a common principal and desire to see a free society. Is an an-cap society really so far fetched when you watch a community band together; thanks to the mass spreading of information in this age of the internet, to crush land-grabbing bandits?

That's what a government is. A group of gangs (who are consolidating into one big gang) who rule our world, and a truly free society is only possible by educating future generations to understand that governments do not have legitimate authority, but rather they rule by force. When I think about how far libertarian mind-set has come in just a few years, I do not doubt for a moment that within a few generations, the internet and other technology will make a truly voluntary society without governments gangs possible.

You're right in that its never happened before, but then, we've never had the ability to spread information and ideas to the four corners of the world before. Governments have always seized all information and kept it from the people. They do this because they also know that the state is an illusion, and that volunteerism IS possible. If they didn't think so, they wouldn't fear the spread of information.

Think about that. Humanity will not enter its golden age until we abolish this primitive mindset and embrace self governance. That process starts with people working toward it rather than caving in and accepting the state.

Have you ever heard the

Have you ever heard the phrase correlation is not causation? If so, you didn't take it to heart.