Crypto, AI, e Libertà: da che parte sta l’Europa?

Bruxelles, PfE Foundation –

Questo articolato intervento è stato presentato a Bruxelles nel corso di un evento della PfE Foundation, all’interno del panel “Ethical AI: Championing Moral Responsibility in European Innovation”.
Ho partecipato come relatore in qualità di membro del board di Free Academy, portando una posizione filosofica e politica netta sul tema dell’intelligenza artificiale, della scarsità, del controllo tecnologico e della libertà individuale.

Quello che segue è il testo integrale del mio intervento.

———

Crypto, AI, Ethics – Whose side are you on?”

Bruxelles 19/11/2025

How Europe can ensure that technological progress remains grounded in human values and democratic accountability

Panel title: “Ethical AI: Championing Moral Responsibility in European Innovation”

Opening: Ethics is the real weak point of politics

Good morning everyone,
and thank you for the invitation.

In this panel, we are being asked to imagine an ethical artificial intelligence.
But I would like to start with a simple observation:

I believe that, in Europe today, politics lacks ethics.
And that is its real weak point.

This is not new, of course.
Let me recall some very relevant words by Murray Rothbard,
from The Ethics of Liberty. He wrote that:

the modern political scientist thinks he can be “neutral”:
he thinks he can avoid moral judgments,
and that he can shape public policy
without taking any clear position on what is right or wrong.

But every political proposal, even a very small one,
always contains a moral judgment,
explicit or hidden.

If you do not declare your ethics,
your choices will almost always be confused and inconsistent.

In order to build public policy,
we must first build a system of social ethics.
In the past, this was the job of political philosophy.
Today, in the name of a fake “neutral science”,
moral philosophy has been pushed away,
and political theory has become sterile
as a guide for human beings who are looking for answers.

This is exactly our problem.

Today, no major political party builds public policy
on a social ethic that puts responsibility,
and not good intentions, at its core.

This produces an effect we know very well:

• the State grows,
• the bureaucracy grows,
• economic freedom shrinks,

and in the end we get a Europe that is less prosperous and less free.

This is true for:

• taxation and economic regulation,
• migration with no clear limits,
• and now also for new technologies and artificial intelligence.

So the basic question is simple:

Which ethic do we need to shape a prosperous future
for Europe, especially in the era of AI?

Today I want to propose a clear answer:
we need a libertarian ethic.

That means an ethic that:

• defends our Christian roots and the dignity of the person,
• rejects fake solidarity that destroys cohesion and security,
• and sees technology as a tool for freedom,
  not as an excuse to build new centralised powers.

What is a libertarian social ethic, in simple words?

We must separate two levels:

• Personal ethics: what is “good” for me as a person.
  For example: being generous, helping others, doing volunteer work.
• Social ethics: what it is legitimate for the State and institutions
  to impose by law – and therefore, if needed, by force.

When politics makes laws about AI, about the internet, about money,
it is always using some kind of social ethic,
even when it pretends to be “just technical”.

A libertarian social ethic is actually very simple to describe.
It comes from the Golden Rule of our Christian roots:

“Treat others as you would like them to treat you.”

In the secular language of political philosophy,
that ancient wisdom has become what we now call the NAP –
the Non-Aggression Principle:

“No one has the right to start using force
against peaceful people and their property.”

In even simpler words:

Do not use violence – not even “legal” violence –
to force people who have not harmed anyone.

If this is still not clear, let me propose a small thought experiment.

Imagine five shipwrecked people in a lifeboat
with only four seats.
If they all stay, they all sink.
One must die to save the others. What do we do?

• If you think it is right to vote and throw someone out,
  even against their will –
  you are a coherent democrat, but lethal.
• If you think the weakest or “least useful” person must be sacrificed –
  you are a brutal utilitarian.
• If you think that only voluntary sacrifice is acceptable,
  and that you are ready to take responsibility for your own choice –
  then you have a libertarian ethic.

Libertarian ethics does not deny solidarity.
On the contrary: it moves it back to the person.

Solidarity is beautiful when it is free and voluntary.
It becomes injustice when it is imposed
on those who cannot defend themselves.

The same is true for the State:

• the State can protect us from violence,
• but it must not become the main aggressor itself
  with excessive taxes, controls and rules.

This ethical compass – do not aggress the person and their property –
would have helped us avoid turning democratic states into bureaucratic nightmares.

And today it becomes even more important
to avoid turning the most powerful technological tool in history, AI, into a new tool of oppression and digital statism.

OK, but why?

An austro-libertarian theory of scarcity

Let me introduce what I call an austro-libertarian theory of scarcity.

Classical libertarianism starts from a clear idea:

Resources are scarce,
human desires are infinite.

This creates conflict, and therefore the need for:

• a non-aggressive ethic,
• private property,
• voluntary exchange,

to avoid the war of everyone against everyone.

But now we can ask:

• If AI and robots produce goods at very low marginal cost,
• if energy becomes very cheap thanks to new and renewable sources,
• if what used to be scarce becomes accessible, replicable, distributed – like knowledge –

do we still need private property?
Do we still need a libertarian ethic?

Spoiler: yes. More than ever.

Because AI and robotics do not eliminate scarcity;
they simply reshape it.

New forms of scarcity emerge:

• our attention,
• our time,
• our autonomy.

For this reason, in a world transformed by AI,
I see two main axes for a libertarian ethics.

Axis 1 – Cognitive sovereignty (what enters my mind)

By cognitive sovereignty I mean the right of people
to keep control over their own:

• attention,
• information,
• formation of opinions and choices.

Today, many platforms use AI to decide what we see:

• videos, posts, news, suggestions of things to buy,
• even political messages and “recommended content”.

If the hidden goal of the algorithm is only
to maximise the time we spend on the platform,
AI becomes a tool of soft manipulation.

A simple example:

The algorithm of a big social platform
learns what makes us nervous, excited, angry.
It starts to show us more and more extreme content,
because this keeps us online for longer.

The result:

• our view of the world becomes distorted,
• society becomes more polarised,
• and we do not even notice that we are being guided.

Libertarian ethics does not say: “ban AI”.
It says: a person must not be treated as an object to manipulate.

In practice, this means:

• the goals of the algorithm must be explained in human language;
• users must have a real possibility to change the settings;
• there must be a right to use the service
  without total profiling.

If I cannot understand, cannot choose and cannot leave,
this is not an “intelligent service”:
it is algorithmic domination.

Axis 2 – Sovereignty over tools and decisions (who controls what)

The second axis concerns who controls what:

• who decides with AI,
• who owns and controls the intelligent tools we use.

First example: credit.

A bank uses an AI model
to decide if it gives someone a loan.

The model analyses income, financial history,
but also behaviour, locations, shopping habits.

The person is classified as “high risk”, and the loan is denied.
When they ask for a reason, the answer is:
“the algorithm decided”.

Nobody uses physical force,
but an opaque process decides important parts of a life
with no clear responsibility.

Libertarian ethics does not promise loans for everyone,
but it asks for three simple things:

• an explanation that is easy to understand,
• the possibility of a human appeal,
• control over the sensitive data used.

Second example: ownership of intelligent tools.

Think of a robot in a company,
or a personal AI assistant at home.

Companies buy robots and integrate them in their processes.
Everything is fine, until one day the producer, from far away,
changes the rules:

• if you do not pay the “premium” subscription,
  some functions stop working;
• if the political climate changes,
  a new law allows an authority
  to block certain uses with a software update.

Simple question:

Who really controls this tool?
The one who paid for it,
or the one who controls the software?

Libertarian ethics says we must respect
basic rules of property:

• if I bought it, I must be able to use it, turn it off, repair it;
• nobody should be able to “pull the plug” from far away
  without due process.

In short:

Sovereignty is not only over data.
It is also over decisions and tools.

Closing: three messages for Europe

Let me close with three messages
for an Ethical AI.

First: embrace a libertarian ethic.
Without a clear ethical compass,
AI becomes only a multiplier of power
in the hands of States and big platforms.

We must choose a social ethics that respects the person,
property and individual responsibility,
and also the new scarce resources:
our cognitive sovereignty
and our technological autonomy.

Second: do not over-regulate.
The real “regulation” of AI
is to guarantee freedom in the code.

For me, this also means accepting
what I call an ethical fork:

• allowing the coexistence of different AI models
  with different, clear, declared ethical baselines;
• including at least one model inspired by libertarian ethics,
  centred on inalienable individual rights.

Imagine a simple scene:
the same question, two AI models.

• One optimises for “collective equity”.
• The other optimises for individual liberty.

The user chooses the moral compass.
This is, in the end, treating adults as adults.

Third: protect our Christian roots.
A Europe that proudly upholds its Christian heritage –
a heritage centred on the dignity of the individual –
and that does not undermine its social cohesion and security can become the home of an innovation that truly empowers its people:

not digital subjects,
but citizens who are freer, more informed, and stronger.

Whether AI will multiply our freedom
or our dependence
depends on this:

on the social ethics we choose today.

Thank you. 🙏

APPENDIX

SECTION A

“AI, the State and bureaucracy: how to avoid a digital Leviathan” – SHORT VERSION

The big European question is not:
“Should we regulate AI or not?”

The real question is:

Who gets stronger thanks to AI – the State, big platforms, or citizens?

If our only answer is “more bureaucracy”, we create a paradox:

• big global platforms, with huge legal teams, can adapt to any new rule;
• small European firms, startups and innovators give up.

So AI ends up empowering exactly the players we already fear:
private monopolies and oversized public bureaucracies.

A libertarian ethic does not mean “no rules at all”.
It means something more precise:

• Very few, very clear bans against aggression:
  violence, total surveillance, large-scale fraud;
• Maximum freedom where there is only economic risk,
  experimentation and competition.

Concrete example:

An app that uses AI to recommend books or films
is not the same thing as an AI-based social credit system.

• In the first case, “light rules” are enough:
  transparency on how suggestions are made,
  clear consent, and the option to turn personalisation off.
• In the second case – a system that scores citizens,
  punishes or rewards them based on behaviour
  and follows them everywhere –
  we are facing a digital Leviathan.
  This is not something to “regulate better”:
  it is something to ban at the root.

Punchline:
Less bureaucracy, more clear limits
on the power of the State and big platforms.
That is the kind of simple, coherent ethic
European politics really needs.

SECTION B

“Crypto, money, AI and the myth of the end of scarcity” – SHORT VERSION

When we talk about AI and innovation,
we often forget the biggest ethical problem: money.

We live in a system where:

• central banks decide how much money exists;
• governments use inflation, knowingly or not,
  to reduce the weight of public debt.

Inflation is not a force of nature.
It is usually the result of political decisions.

When too much money is created:

• those who receive the new money first benefit;
• ordinary savers see their purchasing power quietly destroyed.

This is a hidden tax,
without a vote and without consent.

From a libertarian point of view,
this is not only a technical flaw.
It is an ethical violation.

A just monetary system should follow three rules:

1. No new rules without transparency.
2. No promises without proof.
3. No monopoly without accountability and exit options.

People should be free to choose the monetary tools they trust,
and to take responsibility for their choices.

Cryptographic technologies were created
as a response to this failure:

• fixed and transparent rules written in code;
• no single authority that can change them arbitrarily;
• distributed verification: everyone can check.

With AI, this becomes even stronger:

• smart contracts can enforce financial terms automatically;
• risk can be monitored in real time;
• proof-of-reserves for stablecoins can be verified continuously,
  not with glossy PDFs, but with verifiable data.

Punchline:
Technology cannot magically make people honest,
but it can make dishonesty much harder.

With crypto and AI guided by an ethic of truth and responsibility,
Europe can build a financial system that relies less on inflation
and more on transparency, accountability and freedom.

SECTION C

“European identity, migration and AI: defending cohesion in the age of algorithms” – SHORT VERSION

Many of the most explosive debates in Europe today
are about migration and cultural identity.

Without a clear social ethic, we risk two opposite errors:

1. using technology to control everyone, in the name of security;
2. refusing any control at all, in the name of abstract “openness”,
   and pushing the cost onto the weakest citizens.

In both cases we fail to protect both freedom and cohesion.

A libertarian ethic, rooted in European tradition, says two things:

1. Every political community has the right
   to defend its cohesion, culture and security.
   This is not hatred; it is basic self-preservation.
2. No power, public or private, has the right
   to use technology to silence legitimate dissent.

Concrete example:

• AI can be used in a legitimate way to
  detect fake documents,
  identify people with dangerous criminal records,
  and coordinate security forces.
  Here technology protects citizens, families and workers
  from real threats.
• The same tools can be abused to
  produce one-way propaganda,
  label any criticism of migration policy as “hate”,
  and hide real problems under a digital carpet.

In this second case, technology becomes
a tool of moral blackmail and soft censorship.

Punchline:
AI should serve cohesion, security and truth,
not an ideology fixed in advance.

A Europe that defends its roots –
also with the help of technology –
is a Europe that can welcome others better:
in an orderly, sustainable and fair way.

SECTION D

“Abundance, property and cognitive monopolies: the new frontier of freedom” – SHORT VERSION

For two centuries we have repeated:
“Economics is the science of scarce resources.”

But in a world where AI, robotics and digital technology
make many goods almost infinitely replicable,
we must ask:

What is the role of property, of exclusive rights and patents?
In digital abundance, is property still about freedom – or about power?

If we apply old tools to this new reality, we risk a paradox:

• property no longer protects people from theft;
• it protects artificial monopolies
  that block knowledge and innovation.

Scarcity becomes something manufactured,
through:

• information monopolies (closed data, closed APIs),
• cognitive monopolies (opaque algorithms),
• fake “decentralised” systems controlled by a few actors.

A libertarian ethic in a world of abundance
does not say “abolish all property”.
It says:

• keep strong property rights where goods are really scarce and rival;
• redesign rights over digital goods
  in a voluntary, contractual, decentralised way
  (open licences, smart contracts, agreements of use –
  not absolute bans from above);

and, above all:

refuse cognitive monopolies:
no one should control alone the keys to knowledge and algorithms.

Example:

A large AI model trained on books, code, images from millions of people.

• Scenario 1: closed model, opaque licences,
  a few companies decide who can use it and for what.
  Everyone else becomes permanently dependent.
• Scenario 2: an open-source version exists,
  with clear licences;
  developers can adapt and improve;
  data sources are documented.

In the first case, “property” creates a cognitive monopoly.
In the second, intellectual property is managed
as a network of voluntary contracts, not a wall.

Punchline:
In a world of abundance, the key divide is not rich vs poor,
but included vs excluded from intelligent networks.

Libertarian ethics is not against property.
It is against using property as a gag on knowledge.

Defending freedom today means
breaking cognitive monopolies
and letting digital abundance work for the person, not against them.

SECTION E

“Personal robots and the ethics of delegation: who owns our autonomy?” – SHORT VERSION

In the next years we will see more and more
personal robots and AI agents:

• helping us at work,
• managing our homes,
• acting in the world on our behalf.

A simple but crucial question:

Who truly owns these tools of our autonomy –
we, or those who program and control them from far away?

If robots become central for:

• working,
• accessing services,
• moving in the physical world,

they are no longer gadgets.
They are critical goods for individual freedom.

The risk is a world where:

• I depend on a robot for many tasks,
• but the robot depends on revocable licences, closed software,
  forced updates and remote control.

On the outside, I look more autonomous.
In reality, my autonomy hangs on a wire I do not control.

If the political climate changes,
or a company changes its policy,
or a directive is badly written,
someone in a distant office can decide
that parts of my robot simply stop working.

A libertarian ethic says that in the age of robotics,
the question “who owns what?” becomes even more central.

Three key points:

1. Real private property:
   If the robot is mine, I must be able to use it, switch it off,
   repair it and modify it,
   without hidden kill switches and opaque licences.
2. Decentralised markets:
   No de facto monopoly on building, maintaining or programming robots.
   We need open standards, interoperability, many providers.
3. Ethics of delegation:
   If I act through a robot, I remain responsible
   for respecting the Non-Aggression Principle.
   The robot is an extension of my will, not an excuse to escape ethics.

Punchline:
In the age of personal automation,
freedom is not only “not being attacked”.

It is having real control
over the intelligent tools that make our life possible.
Personal robots must be protected ethically and legally
almost like our homes –
or we will live in “smart” houses
where everything is clever,
except our actual freedom.