12 Feb 2015

Julie Borowski Gives Libertarian Guys Dating Advice

All Posts 11 Comments

This sounds really stereotypical, but she actually gives good advice. My main reaction to this video was, “Wow, Julie is even nicer than I thought.”

11 Responses to “Julie Borowski Gives Libertarian Guys Dating Advice”

  1. guest says:

    I was going to ask about Julie Borowski’s twin sister, but this was unexpected (no offense).

    She may not have gotten it all those times before, but her quirkiness is a large part of her attractiveness.

    On the issue of being well-rounded, I was thinking about that when Tom Woods’ video came out about him wanting to take some time for himself and his family.

    I thought: If we had a free market today, then what? I wouldn’t be trying to fight a bunch of battles. I’d use my freedom to enjoy life.

    That’s also why I mentioned, at the time, that the fight for freedom is about Tom Woods’ freedom right now, from Tom’s perspective, and not about the Remnant.

    (In fighting for one’s own freedom, we end up fighting for the Remnant, anyway, it turns out.)

    Question, though, for Julie (or libertarian girls, in general, now that you’re spoken for) on the money issue:

    Hypothetically, you have a choice between two guys who are more or less similar in a sufficient (as defined by you) number of ways, and you like both of them (so far).

    One guy is a cop who gets his money from the State, so he can support you comfortably.

    The other guy is poor because he refuses to take jobs that are funded through taxes or in industries that are subsidized. But he’s also not on Welfare.

    Whom do you choose?

    I think I know the answer. And if I’m right, then God help us all, Julie, because a man’s reason for being is the love of a woman, and he will cave to the State for her.

    • Carrie says:


      I cannot speak for all libertarian women but I will offer my perspective as an Objectivist-y voluntarist.

      For me, an essential trait in a partner is integrity, meaning coherence between thought and action, or upholding one’s stated principles in practical reality. Therefore, I would not admire or trust someone who claimed to support the theory of liberty while living like a statist when it was more immediately convenient to do so. I won’t use your example of a police officer (since even in a free market system I think most officers’ personalities would be too authoritarian for me), but I’ll use a more extreme case of an IRS agent. No, I would never date an IRS agent. Someone who truly believed in a free market system would not be able to hold such a job in good conscience; nor would I be able to retain my integrity by intertwining my life with him. Thus, I would rather be with a janitor who did honest work and earned $20,000, than with a statist earning 10 times that much.

      You write, “…he will cave to the State for her.” This is precisely what he should NOT do. A principled woman would not want a man to bend his principles for her—or for anyone.

      Second, I also value independence and productiveness. By this I mean I am not seeking and would not allow someone to support me financially. I want to earn my own living. A partner’s salary is thus largely irrelevant to me, as long as he is providing for himself and not expecting me (or faceless taxpayers) to subsidize his existence.

      Another important trait is having a passion and drive about SOMETHING. This is where my advice diverges a bit from Julie’s. I think you *should* talk about libertarianism and not try to hide or temper your enthusiasm for your interests. You should seek someone who “gets” your intensity. In general I find that most women don’t hold philosophy with as much importance as I do, so this thought might not apply in a general sense, but I can’t comprehend being in a committed relationship with someone who doesn’t take ideas as seriously. If libertarianism matters significantly to you and is at the core of who you are, I think you will be disappointed with someone who holds opposite views or is apolitical at best.

      • Dan says:

        “If libertarianism matters significantly to you and is at the core of who you are, I think you will be disappointed with someone who holds opposite views or is apolitical at best.”

        Depends on what you want out of a relationship. I can’t date women that are passionate about political philosophy, even though I am very passionate about it. I have more than enough outlets for that already, and I prefer women that give me a break from that world.

  2. Dan says:

    “The other guy is poor because he refuses to take jobs that are funded through taxes or in industries that are subsidized. But he’s also not on Welfare.”

    You don’t have to be poor just because you don’t want to work for the State or in industries that are subsidized by the State. But, yeah, if you’re poor, you’re options are going to be much more limited. Still, I see poor people with women all the time, so clearly there are girls that don’t mind being destitute.

  3. Grane Peer says:

    “askin for pics of mah feet”

  4. skylien says:

    Really nice advice. I guess you could replace libertarianism with any strong view/ideology held by people. Doesn’t matter if it is vegetarianism, fitness, socialism, environmentalism etc.. (I mean no matter what you believe finally everybody needs somebody, right?)

  5. Tel says:

    Hmmm, my general advice on dating is don’t ever give advice on dating, and certainly don’t listen to anyone giving advice (sorry Julie).

    That said, males are (statistically speaking) risk takers and females tend to avoid risk and seek security. There’s good biological reasons for this, read “The Red Queen”. Pick any fringe lifestyle or marginal political group and you will find more men than women in that group. When men ask about meeting more libertarian women, they typically don’t mean “How can I buff up to impress women in general” then mean something like, “I think the odds are against me when I see that the events I go to are mostly men and hardly any women, so rather than fighting to the death amongst five men for one woman, I’m thinking about going some place else.”

    I might also point out that (from any gender’s point of view) you have to decide if you intend to have sex with a lot of people, or have sex with few people but often… the strategy is fundamentally different, and I’m not going to try to give you a right or wrong answer to that, but you have to think about things like dishonesty, being yourself, what you enjoy, and what you think it means to be successful.

    This is not dating advice, and you didn’t get it from me.


  6. Daniel Kuehn says:

    I assume the ISFL conference was scheduled this weekend because the organizers figured everyone would be free on the 14th, right?

  7. guest says:

    It is now 2022, and there’s a Freedom Convoy of Canadian Truckers, who are opposing masking and vaccination government mandates, that PM Justin Trudeau is attempting to suppress by force.

    But at least these truckers were more than one-dimensional and had other interests that they could place above the pursuit of liberty.

    Imagine what losers they would’ve been if, while attempting to be human and get some needs met (while also trying to make an actual connection with a lady), they had instead tried – way back when women couldn’t see the dangers to liberty – to make a connection grounded in libertarian philosophy (while also doing other things because nobody *really* has only liberty interests) so they could always be undistracted from advancing liberty.

    I don’t want to see any ladies getting all one-dimensional on us when murders or imprisonments happen to the truckers.

    Because, when it mattered and the threats were not so obvious and you could do something about it, women had other interests.

Leave a Reply