Is Julie Borowski an anarchist?



okay you look beautiful yeah absolutely so let's talk about your views and this is Julie Borowski and you're the sole libertarian on YouTube right and I appreciate the fact that you recognize me I'm not that famous oh it's nice that somebody recognized me anyway is there anything you like to talk about okay okay well maybe you've noticed that my favorite topics on domestic policy are redistribution of wealth and my favorite topic and foreign policy is when we should go to war so do either of those grab your attention yes okay let's start with should the government redistribute its citizens wealth you are in your wealth that's yours that you should never discover showboats sorry I always felt that over her okay a long day yeah I just did a interview right know the government networks too you earned that money you should earn it you should do whatever you want with your own money is the government supposed to protect citizens against people that want to use force to take their money I believe that people can defend themselves since they need hope they can get it you don't think that the government should protect the citizens against people that want to use force to take their money why is that the government's job okay so do you think the government should have any jobs I believe ideally I would like a voluntary Society were all exchanges are voluntary so you don't you don't think the government should have any police I think that's a very much last step I think there are things you have to go for too before you get there okay but ultimately you think that would be optimum where each each citizen is responsible for his own defense and there would be basically no government right I mean I would like to see a free market a free society happen I don't think that's gonna happen in my lifetime I'm not advocating for that I just want you know some steps in the right direction at least but you either want to the government to have a role a function of protecting the individual rights of the citizens or you think there should be no government and each citizen should protect its own his own rights well I try to be a very practical person I understand what my ideals may not happen I saw I advocate for what can happen in the near future but if you had your Rather's you think the optimum would be that there would be no government I don't see that happening in my lifetime so it's not something I'm focused on okay I don't think you answered but it's okay I'm curious because there is a position called an anarchist or the anarchy position and they believe that no government is the optimum there are other people that believe that a limited government where the government is limited to defending the individual rights of the citizens that that would be the optimum I was just trying to get which of those two models you think is the optimum I understand but like I said a very practical person if we went back to constitutional limited government that's a huge step in the right direction that's what I'm kind of advocating for small steps in the right direction so you would then advocate for there to be a government and for there to be police to protect the citizens against people that want to use force to take their money well it's not something I directly advocate for because I don't see it happening any time soon so it's kind of what's the point of saying that I want to focus on goals that are actually winnable in the near future so you do think that the government and the near future now should have a role and should protect the citizens against people that want to use force like robbers to take their money well I know it's going to in the near future it's not going to change people aren't on board with that you know the majority of people are not on board with that very small percentage of people are so we definitely need to advocate we definitely need to advocate for short-term goals that actually are winnable and to get the public involved well most people right now believe that the government should protect the citizens against people that want to use force to take their money these days and we're trying to put them in the right direction so do you think that the government preventing robbers from assaulting you is equivalent to big government kind of follow me so should there be police or not should do you is it are you better off with a where there is a government and they can protect you against people that want to use force to take your money or would you be better off without a government and you protect yourself against people that want to use force to take your money I'm very realistic about it I know that's not going to happen you know I could have privatized police any time the next couple years – why be focused on that I believe you know getting rid of police corruption is a good start okay so the government does have a role to protect the citizens against other aggressors predators will want to use for us to take their money it has a role now do you think it should have a role like I said I'm very practical person you think it should are using them thinking I think the here and now I'm not thinking about but there's so many other winnable goals that we could focus on besides that so you think there should be any loss and like I say you're not gonna get rid of all the laws the next couple years you can get rid of the really bad ones yeah that's what I think we should guys looking for would it be better if we could get rid of all of them is that your end goal when that's not going to happen why not if people agree with you if people agree that anarchy is the best state then they would anarchist are there less than one person the population I agree and they're unlikely to get a majority but it could happen it's not that it's impossible sure but it's not it's not a winnable thing to focus on right now getting rid of all the laws really bad laws we can get rid of in the near future and that's why I see the best thing we can do cool Morse most effective okay so try to finalize this line of questioning should the government protect the citizens against people that want to use force to take their money it is right now I agree and you think it should like I said I don't I don't see privatizing police anytime than your future so that's not something I'm going to advocate for because it's not going to happen anytime soon okay originally I thought you said that the people should protect themselves ideally yes




Comments
  1. Again Jan too focused on gov't role as protectors. Cops stop about 5% of crime if they're lucky. They kill more Americans (and dogs) than terrorists have this century. They harrass and collect not serve and protect. Gov't is an illusion.

  2. Why I am not an anarchist. Here is the reasoning, so if you are an anarchist, please  focus on the premises and tell me which ones you agree with and which not. General arguments: 1. First of all, I am not saying that all these negative consequences I ascribe to anarchism are only possible, I think they are probable. The probable consequences: increasing crime because there are individuals  not protected  by a defense agencies that used to be protected by the state i.e. more easy victims; incentivizing the acquisition of military hardware by criminal gangs to increase their pool of potential victims( something they do not do it now because it makes no sense for them now) , an arms race between criminal gangs and defense  agencies, as well as foreign tyrants that would attempt to rob and extort the weakest of us , i.e., those that could not deter their aggression; an increase in the possibility of civil war inside United States because all conflicts between defensive agencies with armies have this potential outcome – something that is not true today, even under our mixed system.

      I have explained the premises that lead me to these conclusions, I would like to know which ones you dispute. David said that the defense agencies would normally not fight, implying sometimes they would. If two defense agencies fight that is a mini war here in the United States. Some of these wars will draw in other defense agencies , increasing the scope of the war and have collateral damage that would make life miserable in your city. You don't need too many of them for things to be horrible.

    The premises for my conclusion that there would be an increase in criminality are: there will always be people that choose predation, they prefer to pick on the weakest links- victims, there are individuals  not protected  by a defense agencies that used to be protected by the state i.e more easy victims. Thus, more crime. Premises for the conclusion that criminal gangs would be incentivized to buy military hardware. With a central government there is no incentive for criminal gangs to acquire tanks, guided missiles, or drones, because that just makes it easier for them to be caught and they do not increase their pool of victims. However, once the state is removed every investment in military hardware increases the amount of potential victims. David thinks that this investment would be unwise on their part. How does he know? Does he know cost-benefit analysis of criminality ? On the face of it, a small investment in guided missiles would increase the potential for extortion enormously. More and more people would just have to give in to the demand of extortion.  The same logic applies to foreign tyrants and criminals. David's answer is, he would depend on charity to pay for a professional army that could deter these threats of extortion. I think this is imprudent and I would never rely on charity to protect my freedom, and all my property. It is too flimsy a reed on which to support your whole life. I think your chances protecting your liberty and property are greater by socially organizing with people that are willing to pay for such an important service and commit to this legally in the form of a limited government.
    Please read the rest of this comment copied on this page at the top and answer the questions.

  3. Jan it isnt the governments job to protect you and even if it was they are a compulsory monopoly they have no incentive to perform their duties well if at all

  4. What the fuck would this puny little girl do in an anarchist society? She would be a tied up brood mare or living sex toy, that roving bands of marauders can trade spare ammo, spare water or other spare goods to use at best.

    Or a fucking corpse at worst.

    She wouldn't last 15 seconds.

  5. Julie's premise that the rich "earned" their money is flawed. Inherited wealth is unearned wealth. Also, the rich got their wealth on the backs of the poor. Redistributed wealth via higher taxes on the rich is an appropriate method of redistribution, particularly on those who inherit their wealth.

  6. I think he failed miserably in this interview. why keep your focus on a subject she clearly isn't going to answer. The answer is he thought he would out smart her and back her into a corner. clearly didn't happen. A waist of my time.

  7. like i said, im a practical person, why im practically repeating myself to avoid a conversation and stop myself from looking bad

  8. also, when pro-gun people say "defend yourself" they don't usually really mean "no state" lol  . . . just look at the defense budget lmao

    I like the idea of bridging anarchism & theoretical approaches to governance (possibly self-governance) with mainstream political discussions, but wow.

  9. I can't say I've ever seen a pushy anarchist interview. The guy's acting like he doesn't know that most people's baseline is the constitution. That includes Julie, a social-conservative, pro-gun, anti-regulatory state pseudo-libertarian. Her baseline for her working ideology (not theory btw) is the constitution. Most garden variety americans who have some interest in politics have the constitution as their baseline.

    If you formulate an agreesive line of questioning about "what kind of state should we have if any"  and don't presuppose the constitution, of course you're going to get deflections & pivots to practicality. I thought she was rather graceful considering.

    I never thought I would be an apologist for her lol.

  10. The promotion of police in our current stage is clear, protect the biggest of criminals (govts. Big Corp)
    and hang the petty thieves.

  11. She seems delusional. There really are evil people who will rob you, and Government has a legal monopoly on the use of force to keep the evil people in check. This is why limited Government is best.

  12. I'm very surprised by her disappointing performance here. After listening to her videos, I agreed with her on most things. I expected her to be able to answer your questions. Her inability to handle hypotheticals seemed anti intellectual and I wouldn't have predicted that. I don't understand how one can have little goals in the right direction but not know what direction that is. Maybe she was just tired.

  13. Thanks for the interview. I was wondering what she actually was and it's pretty clear that she's an ancap who's afraid to speak her mind. Those small goals that she said we should be struggling for now ultimately lead to bigger ones, and she refused to name them.

  14. Jan, history gives your answer. The very same USA federal government was founded with a very limited set of tasks, and in the end such a setup all-ways will turn into a behemoth of a bureaucracy. Any limited government will eventually grow and expand its reach and power to all corners of society.

  15. Julie is trying to keep her minarchist viewers here. If you like anarcho capitalism say it. There is nothing wrong with advocating for that but also saying "it won't happen in my lifetime so I'm only focused on moving in the right direction."

  16. Horrible questions worse answers. Let's try this way: Question: Do you believe Police have a role in government? Answer: Yes they do have a role. I would prefer a private solution but thatbis so far away from our current situation that it is not something I am activeky advocating. So yea, I want to privatize police, just not yet, not in the absense of a evolution in the way the public thinks about security. So I am advocating for more freedom, with a practical step by step approach to dismantling government not simply to leave a vacuum (in other words not a revolution, not to replace one tyranny for another), but to change the way we think about liberty and the role of the ever growing monolithic monopoly on violence, kidnapping, extortion, and theft. I don't know The Way, I just know there are other ways and it just takes people to realize the extent to which the State's very existance makes the world less capable of peace; it just takes for people to stand up and disobey without asking for permission. I'm hopeful; We are seeing some positive technological developments with individual privacy, open source, distributed peer to peer cryptographic applications, censorship resistant marketplaces, cameras turned at the police, citizen journalism, and more and more possibilities for diverse human interaction and development.

  17. The government should use force to take your money so they can protect you from people who may want to use force to take your money???

  18. My god this hurt. I'm a fan of Julie's but she dun fucked up on this xD
    "Do you believe it shouldn't be the role of government to protect you from people stealing your property blah blah blah"
    Easy, true answer. The government IS taking our property. That's what taxation is in the first place- that's why we have a moral opposition to that to start with. This is comparable to the Mafia charging you a "protection fee", where if you pay them, you can stay safe. But you can't opt out or you'll get rekt. Julie I am disappoint

  19. Julie is smart, passionate, and principled. She's answering this dude's questions. This guy is trying to pick a fight. What's up with that?

  20. Much like Larken Rose, Helfeld seems to not comprehend that motion toward an ideal (then remeasure) is enough. I completely agree with Julie. The future is hard to predict. Julie's position is very similar to Henry David Thoreau's position. I'd be happy to give Helfeld a clearer set of answers than anyone has ever given him on this subject.

    A lot of people have not read Spooner, and hence conclude that Spooner is an "anarchist." The voluntaryist minarchist position is possibly the same (right now) as the voluntaryist anarchist position (because noone can see the future). As the future comes into being, material reality would force either the voluntaryist anarchist view or voluntaryist minarchist view to materialize. …You need to compare and contrast the two to get to the truth.

    Getting people to agree on what the law should do is the first step.

    1) Everyone agrees that murderers should be punished. Everyone agrees that it should be illegal for police to do what private citizens are not allowed to do. Thus, in a voluntaryist constitutional minarchy, a citizen can arrest a rapist or murderer, presenting his evidence to the authority or jail that will then afford that accused due process, taking down the information of his accusors, if that (legitimate and recognized as legitimate) authority agrees that there appears to be a valid "cause of action." Without knowing and agreeing upon these terms, there is no voluntary interaction, because there is no standard upon which to voluntarily base interactions, especially not when civility breaks down.

    2) Would the jail be voluntarily financed in a libertarian minarchy? Yes. Would the jail be voluntarily financed in a libertarian anarchy? Yes. What if the jail was voluntarily financed, but everyone -even those who had not paid for the jail- voted about whom to put into the jail? There would still be retaliatory "coercion" against the murderers and rapists, but that coercion would have the agreement of the people who sympathized with those who had their rights violated. This would constitute a voluntaryist society, because the payments to the jail would be voluntary, and anyone could opt out of paying. However, it would also constitute a government, because those who had not paid for the jail would be able to vote about how the jail was used (so you couldn't have "privatized prisons full of drug offenders," because the potential drug offenders would also get a vote).

    The thing that determines that there's no such thing as a "drug offense" is the "rule of law," which is the same thing that determines that you cannot make taxation mandatory. Maybe this means that defensive forces wither away, and privately-financed security companies become the norm. If payors sponsored nonpayors, and everyone protected themselves, you'd have a guild system, and potentially an uneasy peace (with no court of final appeal).

    Perhaps this would work better than the current system works, because the current system doesn't remotely recognize the "common law" referenced by the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the current system is less valuable than anarchy, and "more chaotic than anarchy" in the eyes of many.

    I don't think their view is illegitimate. However, I suspect that Milgram is right and that if the sociopaths in society perceived that there was anarchy, they'd behave even worse than the jack-booted thugs they currently behave like.  For those who think it can't get worse, clearly, it can: Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Mexico's recent democides are all examples.

    Having 1.4 million innocent people in prison is better than having 60,000 dead, but not much. Keep in mind that the USA created those drug murders, much like a lawless nation could create something similar in the anarcho-USA, by outlawing something that was tolerated as a nuisance in the anarcho-USA.

    The only solution around the breakdown of anarchy or the breakdown of minarchy is a shared and standardized "rule of law." This used to be taught in schools in the USA, when schools were 100% private. Since that time, the USA has deteriorated, because education has come under the perverse incentives of teachers whose salaries are only paid by people too dumb and servile to resist property taxation.

    So, the common law standard (all crimes require a valid "corpus" comprised of "injury"+"intent") is the essential element here. Without such a standard, even a "Supreme Court" is not the final arbiter, because that Supreme Court simply assists the lower courts in violating someone's rights. (As it does now.)

    With a shared "common law" view of the law, perhaps government would be so small that nearly everyone would voluntarily pay taxes, and nearly everyone would voluntarily vote. If voting for a viable common law standard, this would work as well as anarchy. If they chose to not pay their taxes, things would be the same as they are now, since lots of Americans currently pay no taxes, and government simply prints money to get what it wants, debasing the currency. Nothing would stop the government from printing its own money in the future, but it wouldn't be able to force anyone to accept it, and it wouldn't be able to stop alternatives. Even so, the amount they printed, and were voluntarily given back might be enough to pay for a minarchy.

    How then, is this different from anarchy? Some anarchists would describe this as anarchy, even though it decides issues of a police force by a vote. (They might call this "proscribing the powers of the voluntary security force with a vote.") However, this wouldn't be precisely accurate, given the dictionary definition of "government." This would satisfy at least one definition of "government."

    Now typically, when anarchists are confronted with this, they hem, haw, and act like idiots, saying "you know what I mean" or "then that wouldnt' be a government."

    The problem with this line of bullshit is that the average unphilosophical American DOES think that this constitutes a government, and one dictionary definition agrees with them. In fact, they may think that we currently live in such a minarchy, and that taxes are voluntary, since they've always voluntarily paid taxes.

    Therefore, calling oneself an anarchist to such people seems "insane," or "impossible," or "not what you're arguing for, based on dictionary definitions." This muddies the water, pushing people away from the idea of the "common law" (which all educated libertarians more or less agree upon), and the idea that the financing of government (or "security") must be 100% voluntary.

    When a murderer is tackled and handcuffed, few "anarchists" believe he has been wronged, no matter how large and well-equipped his private security force is. Moreover, just because he's Donald Trump and can afford a large private security force, they don't think that he has the right to steal Very Coking's house. In fact, most anarchists would state that if a democratic-election-regulated police force took Vera Coking's side against Donald Trump, they'd be in the right.

    In fact, this is what happened. So, Coking won in court, and Trump pissed off and bothered someone else.

  21. Jan asks if she wants a government to exist to protect people from robbing others by force – THE GOVERNMENT USES FORCE TO TAKE OUR MONEY!  Do we need the government to steal our money by force to protect us from robbers who might steal our money by force?  Jan is a fucking moron.

  22. She answers the question at 1:42.  After the question is repeated she realized that she is in hostile territory so backs down to practical goals for the foreseeable future, but clearly she is an anarchist.

  23. Lol, During the whole video I was just shouting at the screen, "Come on Julie, answer the damn question!!!!" lol. I believe julie favors anarchist philosophy but tries very hard to maintain a minarchist mentality for the sake of her target audience. I mean she works for a conservative/libertarian-ish organization. The idea of no government isn't really good for business in the field of political journalism.

  24. Great interview Jan. I am an anarchist, and I was not aware of how much myself and Julie share in common. Thank you for doing such a great job of exposing the core principles of the individual you're interviewing. We may not agree about government, but I am a huge supporter of your channel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *