2 votes

Julie Borowski says Jan is tough. Part 3

Julie Borowski of FreedomWorks says Jan is tough when Jan examines her views on anarchism and political theory. Part 3



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Jan Helfeld's picture

debating is the truth's best chance

I will be scheduling more debates because debating is the truth's best chance. I will go a few more rounds.

Jan Helfeld

ridiculous assumptions

let's say texas is the state that seceded from the usa. then lets say mexico tries to invade and take over. lets say they quickly defeat the texas air national guard and everything else. now what? now the fun begins, the guerrilla war begins. i guess jan does not remember when the second biggest army in the world tried to invade afghanistan in the late 70's early 80's. hint, it did not end well for the former superpower, the ussr. i think texas is a lot more equipped to fight against mexico than cave dwellers fighting tanks and helicopters. i'm sure other states and countries like canada would help out with rocket launchers etc, just like the US covertly helped out the mujahideen in afghanistan.
remember, all it took was one man with a few guns to totally shutdown half the state of cali not too long ago. many years before that one man and a teenager with a sniper rifle caused similar shutdowns throughout the whole Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Jan you are not really arguing for "the legitimacy of government

Jan you seem more to be advocating for strong and uniform "military type" defense of the sort that parts of our current military provide, and strong "police type" defense agencies that are similar to the current type of police protection provided, especially one that would avoid and minimize your worst nightmare Jan; pirates with tanks.

C_T_CZ's picture

Tough to sit through...

I don't know who this 'interviewer' is but he literally spent 98% of the time talking while Julie sat there patiently and quietly. Like she was attending some kind of lecture of his.

It was tough indeed- tough to sit through!

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof

When is the resolution of

When is the resolution of dispute between the generations of crips and bloods going to happen?

When the government stops subsidizing the father

And the membership dries up.


Jan, oh man.

Jan is speaking as if he's under the impression that she's 'Miss AnCap' or something. He did interest me with what he had to say. It was just completely irrelevant because she's not promoting anarchy.

He didn't respond to her trying to straighten him out by saying that she's not promoting what he's lecturing her on. He ignored that point and continued to plow forward. I think he confused her because she didn't know where all of this was coming from. I think that she was both interested and bored during various points of his big speech.

You ultimately interested me but you should explain to everybody where this all came from. I'm sure you don't want this confused as you being condescending to Julie. Maybe you have a bit of a socially awkward goofball in you that came out or something like that? I dunno. I do know I'm now curious as to what the explanation is. Haha. Man. That's funny.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Did you see Part 1 ?

Did you see Part 1 ? She said she did not want any protection from the government or police.

Jan Helfeld

was this supposed to be an interview?

Because all I hear is Jan lecturing the interviewee.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Jan that was brutal, you treated her like an idiot

Julie has a strong point in this video. We are the BIGGEST liberty advocates at the DP are we not? We all advocate for the FREEDOM to HARM OUR OWN BODY!

Whether it be:

1. Not wearing a helmet on your bike
2. Not wearing your seat belt
3. Ingesting some drugs?

Or even.... Wait for it... DUN DUN DUN.............

4. Taking the risk of "gangs with tanks," or a possible "futuristic version of the Hatfield's and McCoys..."


So it is PHILOSOPHICALLY INCONSISTENT to advocate that 1, 2, and 3, are TOTALLY ALLOWABLE, and are even CONSISTENT WITH OUR VIEW OF FREEDOM, BUT... 4 is unallowable?

And we must invent the most elaborate scare stories... in the same fashion that the democrats and socialists do: "The poor will die in the streets, the elderly, the children..."

You know the drill.


Julie, I am sorry. Sorry you had to sit through this. And sorry that Jan invited you to his van...

And sorry that Jan treated you like you are uneducated...

And that Jan has a tank and some missiles in a pole barn behind his house...

And that Jan secretly wishes he could pull off a mohawk.

And sorry that YOU DID NOT EVEN ADVOCATE for a "state-less" society, but Jan tried to "turn you into his opponent."

And that Jan treated you as if you couldn't possibly know a single thing about "the Hatfield and McCoys..."

I'm just sorry.

Dude, julie handled herself like a pro

She knew full well how condescending and patronizing he would be to her her, taking a position that is philosophically inconsistent and yet that he would not willing to budge on.

She humored him, did not waste her time arguing, and politely agreed to disagree.

The jewel in the crown of the whole thing was "you're tuff". It was the exact same patronizing tone that he was using with her the whole interview, and he took it as a token of victory.

I became very impressed with borowski after this interview.


Jan Helfeld's picture

Tell her.

Tell her.

Jan Helfeld

You did better than I could Jan

Here's how it would go if I interviewed Julie:



Julie: are you going to ask me a question?

Smudge: no darlin I just wanna look at you for a while.


Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

Your assumption

that people without a government wouldn't be able to defend themselves against a foreign army is false. If large group of people were free of any government, then they would assume responsibility for themselves, which means the ownership of all types of weapons to not just defend their property, but to hunt, or any other reason. A majority of people in that type of society, being reaponsible, would most likely organize together to defend all their individual properties. This is similar to what happen pre constitution, with the articles of confederation. The articles of confederation was as close to no government as you can get, yet they still organized and had meetings to discuss the future of the colonies. They had representatives from each colony that would discuss issues of war with the British and trade, among other things. Also remember this, it was under the articles of confederation that we won the revolution, not the constitution.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Would the DROS or alliances have nukes?

Would the DROS or alliances have nukes?

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

Postmodernist self contradictory nonsense

Wasted my time on the article you recommended because it is Postmodernist self contradictory nonsense.

Jan Helfeld

Im sorry. i didnt mean for you to waste your time

I won't recommend anymore. I am done asking you questions also. Unless of course you are interested in answering my question about whether or not you believe that people in the government should be able to break the law, on the governments behalf or their own.


And what happens when the

And what happens when the tanks, planes and bombs of an army belong to one's own government are being used to destroy you? Democide remains the largest unnatural cause of human death.

You haven't really attempted to answer this Jan, and I recognize that there are lots of people trying to take a shot at your ideas. Still, what is more dangerous to humans, small time gang wars between defense contractors and rival gangs, or giant scale multi-contenental wars with weapons of mass destruction, genocide and catastrophic loss of life? Nuclear Holocaust could end life on earth. This is the product of governments.

Governments also engage in inevitable gang warfare, just on a vastly larger and deadlier scale than individuals acting in a free society. The only realistic defense for having a government is to protect one's self better from other governments. But isn't that a self-perpetuating evil? Also, wouldn't nuclear missiles under the control of militia groups/defense contractors be a sufficient deterrent against any government until such time as the idea of freedom spreads until there are no governments? After all, the USA ONLY attacks nations who have no nuclear capability.

So lets say that the US government implodes and militia groups lay claim, or there is a fire-sale on our nuclear arsenal. Let's say that defense contractor's A B C & D each buy a few systems for their companies so that they can boast that those who live within their protection benefit from nuclear deterrent of aggressor nations. Or that local militia divvy up the nukes so that the landmass of N. America is protected with the ability to retaliate against any nation which attacks with nuclear capabilities. Wouldn't that keep enemy governments at bay until such time as the free society so vastly out-produced government nations that people everywhere began to see the overwhelming economic and social advantages of giving up one's government?

One last bit; you're incorrect that small arms are not sufficient to stand up to a modern military. Any platoon sized force who doesn't need to hold territory, but rather just hits political targets, can paralyze any military on Earth. Modern military forces are designed to take and hold territory. They aren't nearly as useful against moving guerrilla targets. The only way to stop those types of targets is to annihilate large portions of landmass and people indiscriminately in hopes of hitting your targets. In a geographic location where nearly everyone is armed, such as the US, I could see this having very negative consequences for the invading force.

Jan Helfeld's picture

One neocon defense contractor would end the USA

One neocon defence contractor would end the USA when having a dispute with another contractor decides to go for pre-emption, not to mention an actual criminal gang getting hold of nukes. Did you listen to my presentation in the debate?

Jan Helfeld

I should address your debate.

I should address your debate. So we have a rogue government who threatens to nuke Seattle or San Diego if we don't fork over a billion dollars. Why don't we have nukes to respond? Why don't many of the numerous defense contractors and local militia groups have access to nuclear arms which they "could" use to repel said threats? Why couldn't our free market become very valuable to companies in China who would loose a fortune if a nuke went off here?

I see no reason whatsoever that defense contractors would be any more likely to use a nuke than a government. In fact because of what I wrote below about incentives, it seems vastly more likely that a government would initiate nuclear attacks. They have before.

One last thing to add; If you lived in Pakistan or Afghanistan would you see much difference between a government and a gang? How would you favor your odds of living a happy life if you were born into one of the "smaller" governments who are routinely destabilized and victimized by one of the bigger ones? Isn't it just gang warfare on a mass scale? How is drone missiles dropping on your friends and family so that a giant gang can dump its inflation on you and fuel its gang's weapons via the petrol dollar any better than criminal gangs parking a tank 2 miles away and asking you to wire your bit coins to it?

The same crap that you are afraid of in a stateless society already occurs in this government filled one. We simply have the benefit of being members of the world's biggest gang... for now.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Will some dros decide to use force

Will some dros decide to use force when they have a disagreement. One neocon defence contractor would end the USA when having a dispute with another contractor decides to go for pre-emption, not to mention an actual criminal gang getting hold of nukes. Did you listen to my presentation in the debate?

Jan Helfeld

What about two nations who

What about two nations who have a disagreement and end the entire world? One nuclear super power could wipe life off of earth. Given that governments have already detonated thousands of nuclear devices all around the globe, including on civilian populations, what makes you believe that a private contractor with his tiny allotment of nukes would be any more likely to do this?

If a criminal got his hands on a nuke, he might detonate it over Nagasaki or Hiroshima!

I did listen to your presentation, and found it hypocritical because you seem to ignore that governments already do ALL of these things, but worse than any private groups ever could. My last post was addressing your presentation. Defense contractors would be completely disincentivised toward open conflict because THEY have to pay for their own weapons. Tax payers do not pay for them. Non-violent solutions would always be preferable because of that. It utterly does not benefit a contractor in any way to expend munitions on costly conflicts.

Both private contractors and governments are groups of people who are armed and whose job it is, to defend their "people." One is incentivised toward war because munitions are paid for by their slaves. The other is incentivised toward peace because they have to pay for their own crap and maintain a reputation for following the law and acting with justice. Defense contractors would adhere to the arbiter's decision almost 100% of the time because they are incentivised to do so.

That is why your argument fails. You create an artificial difference between governments and other private organizations, but fail to recognize the only true difference between these groups of humans is one views itself as having authority to violate rights, and also the structure of incentives and distinctiveness of each system. You dream of a limited government, but a limited government is no more feasible than a stateless society, and no government can ever remain limited for long as governments exist in direct violation of NAP. This "power" over others will always draw criminals toward it with the lust to dominate.

You also don't take into account the innovative power of a free market without obstacles and blockades like copyright and patent law. Banditry would create a very powerful market demand which people in the free market could become VERY rich by solving. The number of solutions to those jack-asses in their tanks would be overwhelming and I strongly doubt that banditry would quickly become a thing of the past as modern technology provided private citizens personal self defense.

Imagine being able to transmit your complaint to your defense contractor, provide the incoming demand for your money by the douche in his tank two miles away, and instantly having the tank blasted from orbit by an EMP. Who knows what solutions would occur but with the innovation of the internet and mass communication, motivated by brilliant people who want to become very rich, there would be no individuals that could be "singled out" by bandits. Crimes would be instantaneously broadcasted over the network by victims and responded too by whatever contractors or private citizens were available.

For instance, one of those

For instance, one of those neocon defense contractors might decide to drop nukes on Nagasaki or Hiroshima? Maybe both? Maybe they would threaten nuclear war with their neighboring defense contractor for twenty years so that their populations are so terrified they begin digging bunkers and having their kid's practice hiding under tables in case someone fires a nuke first? In fear they might grant their defense contractors extra rights or allow themselves to be deprived of rights for safety? These defense contractors could call this terrifying stand-off the "Cold Gang War"

How is a nuclear attack any less likely to occur with a government in charge of the nukes? Aren't governments made out of people? Further, aren't they made out of people who are systematically incentivised toward war because munitions are purchased with tax money, and the more need there is to explode weapons, the more taxes are budgeted? Aren't politicians elected by weapons manufacturers who pay for their elections on the promise that they will use said weapons to kill people, then buy more weapons? Doesn't this fascist system guarantee there will be constant (gang)war?

Wouldn't a defense contractor necessarily be vastly more careful about expending expensive nuclear armaments as they would have to pay for such weapons out of their own coffers? Why would any defense contractor wish to wipe out a large part of its own potential customer base and utterly destroy its reputation by detonating a nuclear weapon? Wouldn't they go out of business? Wouldn't it be vastly smarter for them to keep a small arsenal under tight lock and key so they could market their company as being able to repel foreign governments in case of invasion?

Why would a criminal organization want a nuke? Criminals want to steal your wealth. What wealth is left in a giant radiated crater?

But what if a psychopath got a nuke! Someone who is as crazy as say.... Kim Jung in N. Korea! If someone like that got a nuke, they'd immediately commit suicide by launching a strike against their neighbors wouldn't they?

I did yes, but I find your argument is lacking in that you separate governments from other groups of humans who organize in an inexplicable fashion. Its irrational to think that humans who make up government are different from those who don't. The only difference I can see is that government attracts people with authority complexes and gives them unlimited resources and a license to murder.

Governments already do all the things you fear volunteerists in a stateless society would do. They just do it bigger. I don't understand the rational that humans in group A who organize with weapons are somehow okay to have WMDs, deprive people of rights and are expected to keep the peace (despite centuries of nearly constant war), while humans who organize with weapons in group B will immediately and inexplicably fight to the death simply because they don't have the fancy hat and badge that humans in group A have. Its irrational, and worse, its contradicted not only by history, but by present events in our own government.

Humans will never live together peacefully, and there will always be crime. However in a modern stateless society driven by markets where large portions of the population are armed and capable of self defense, we would have less mass murder, mass destruction and less war. No one wants war when they have to pay the bill themselves. Government love war because it is their slaves and the printing press who pays the tab, not the war mongers and elites.

note: That down vote didn't come from me. I love your stuff.

For reference, see:

I don't know, the last 15 years of us foreign policy?



Deceivers pick easy targets?

A victory by deception is deceptively announced as a victory?

Deception wins because the deceivers and the deceived share the deception?



Do you believe that people in government should have the power to break the law and infringe on your rights, or that in people should be able to break the law in the name of the government?


Jan Helfeld's picture

Watch Part 1 & 2 for context

Watch Part 1 & 2 as well for context.

Jan Helfeld