Artificial Intelligence and the Non-Aggression Principle
Share
One of the things I have been amusing myself with lately is testing the boundaries of AI, especially with famous personalities. One of the known capabilities of AI is its ability to parrot narrative style and rhetoric as well as interpreting logical frameworks. I find it to be shockingly good at it, and it can make for highly amusing reads. On top of that, I find that it is able to understand libertarian issues and stay logicially consistent in ways that most people seem to be entirely incapable of. It's a wonderful way to check your logical premises if you are debating a subject or just not sure about your or someone else's position on a particular topic.
All that said, I felt that I should share this fun thought experiment I engaged in with AI, setting up a fictional debate about the merit of the Non-Aggression Priniciple between Ian Freeman, and Ayn Rand. It amused me particularly knowing that Ian has not read much if any Ayn Rand. Sure, study the Koran cover to cover... but read the works of one of the most well known ideological allies... ehhh why bother? hahah
Obviously there are some topics, such as the military, where Ian and Rand clearly have obvious disagreement, but there are other works and others that have far more areas of disagreement that have been shared subjects of conversation. So it has always struck me as odd that she was an author that he had avoided. Blame government schools forcing reading materials I guess. I think that's why a lot of people have either avoided or hate her works - understandably... a lot of it is pretty dry unless you are IN TO Liberty.
However, I assume that's why you're here.
So, here it is. Hopefully you are as amused as I was... If you can manage to read it in their voices in your head, it's even more fun.
Title: Debate: Ayn Rand vs. Ian Freeman on the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)
Moderator: Welcome to this special debate between Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, and Ian Freeman, an anarchist and prominent advocate of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
Tonight’s topic is: Is the Non-Aggression Principle a sufficient foundation for a moral and political philosophy?
Each participant will deliver an opening statement, followed by rebuttals, and conclude with closing arguments. Let’s begin.
Opening Statements
Ayn Rand: The Non-Aggression Principle, as often articulated by anarcho-capitalists and libertarians, is an insufficient foundation for a moral or political philosophy. It is a negative principle—a statement about what one should not do—rather than a positive guide to what one ought to do in life. Political freedom, capitalism, and a flourishing society require more than the mere absence of force; they require a foundation in rational self-interest, property rights grounded in productive achievement, and a government that protects those rights.
The mistake of the NAP, in its anarchist interpretation, is that it assumes morality and social order will spontaneously emerge if we simply refrain from initiating force. But this is a utopian fantasy. Without a rational legal framework backed by a government, individual rights are at the mercy of any gang or warlord that decides aggression is in their best interest. The rejection of government in the name of non-aggression is self-defeating; it invites the rule of brute force rather than reason.
Ian Freeman: Ayn, your mistake—common among statists—is assuming that because people can be violent, we must centralize force in a monopolistic institution called government. The Non-Aggression Principle is not just a political theory; it is the foundation of a just and moral society. It is simple: do not initiate force against others. All moral and economic interactions should be voluntary. Governments, by definition, violate the NAP through taxation and coercion.
You claim the NAP is merely negative, but what could be more positive than a world where every interaction is consensual? The market, social norms, and private security would enforce order far more justly than any government, which historically is the greatest violator of rights. Decentralization and technology have already shown us that central control is not necessary for security, trade, or dispute resolution. The internet has given us decentralized finance, voluntary communities, and reputation-based systems that obviate the need for coercive governance. A stateless society is not a utopia—it is the only moral and practical future for human civilization.
Rebuttals
Ayn Rand: You claim that all moral and economic interactions should be voluntary. I agree—so long as we define “voluntary” correctly. Without a government to define and protect rights, the very concept of voluntary interaction collapses into meaninglessness. You talk about “private security” enforcing order, but what happens when one agency’s definition of justice conflicts with another’s? Who arbitrates? The market? If justice becomes a service up for sale, the wealthiest warlord will impose his version of “voluntarism” on the rest. This is not freedom—it is feudalism.
Moreover, you evade the issue of taxation. You claim taxation is aggression, but in a proper government, taxation is a voluntary exchange: you pay for the protection of your rights. Just as you voluntarily pay for insurance, so too do rational individuals support the only institution that can consistently uphold objective law. Your anarchist utopia, on the other hand, would leave individuals defenseless against organized crime and foreign invasion. No rational person would trade civilization for chaos.
Ian Freeman: Ayn, you assume government is the only institution capable of defining and protecting rights. But history tells a different story: every government, no matter how noble its founding ideals, becomes a bloated and violent monopoly over time. You ask who arbitrates disputes in a stateless society? The same mechanisms that resolve disputes today when people prefer to avoid government courts: private arbitration, reputation systems, and mutual agreements. Competition, not coercion, produces better services, including justice.
As for taxation, calling it “voluntary” is Orwellian. If I refuse to pay, the state will send armed agents to seize my property or imprison me. That is aggression, not an exchange. You are correct that voluntary governance requires rational individuals, but rationality is not exclusive to government bureaucrats. People already form voluntary protection associations, use cryptocurrency to escape central banking coercion, and employ decentralized conflict resolution. The market proves every day that governance can be achieved without violence.
Ayn Rand: You continue to misrepresent the role of government. Force, when properly defined and controlled, is the tool of justice, not tyranny. A proper government operates under objective laws designed to protect individual rights—it does not grow uncontrollably unless irrational or altruistic premises corrupt it. It is the only mechanism capable of ensuring a society where rational individuals are free to flourish. The alternative is chaos.
Ian Freeman: Ayn, I have to challenge you on this assumption that force can be “properly defined and controlled.” Government, by its very nature, expands beyond control. The U.S. was founded on limited government principles, yet it has turned into an overreaching bureaucracy that spies on its citizens, inflates the currency, and engages in endless wars. If governments could truly be contained by their own laws, why has this never happened? You speak of “objective law,” but every government writes and rewrites laws at will, based on power and political influence. What prevents government from redefining aggression and using its monopoly on force to justify oppression?
And let’s clarify something: the Non-Aggression Principle is not pacifism. I am not advocating that people should refuse to defend themselves. Defensive force is justified; initiating force is not. The difference is that in a society based on the NAP, force is always used in direct response to aggression, rather than being institutionalized and preemptive as in a government structure.
You say rational individuals would voluntarily pay for government services—then why must they be coerced? If your ideal government is truly rational and just, shouldn’t it be able to compete in a voluntary marketplace, rather than exist as a monopoly backed by force?
Ayn Rand: Your point about government expansion is well taken, and I do not deny that most governments throughout history have become corrupt. But that does not negate the necessity of government; rather, it highlights the importance of a proper philosophical foundation. If a government is strictly limited by an objective legal framework, grounded in rational self-interest, then it does not have to spiral into tyranny. The challenge, then, is not to abolish government but to ensure that it remains aligned with objective principles.
The irreducible principle here is individual rights. Do you acknowledge that rights require protection? And if so, who enforces those rights in a world without government? If you believe in retaliatory force, then do you admit that some institution must exist to ensure justice is not arbitrary?
Ian Freeman: I agree that individual rights need protection, but I dispute that government is the only way to achieve that. I believe the irreducible principle is voluntary interaction. If you concede that government often expands beyond control, why trust it at all? Why not decentralize the enforcement of rights so no entity can claim a monopoly on force?
Ayn Rand: Because without a central arbiter, force is dictated by might rather than right. That is the contradiction I see in your philosophy. If you grant that force must sometimes be used, then it must be wielded under strict principles—something only a rational government can achieve.
Ian Freeman: And I maintain that no government has ever wielded force without corruption. The key question remains: Is it possible for government to stay within its bounds? If not, then wouldn’t decentralization be the superior path?
Moderator: This discussion remains unresolved, but it has reached a critical point of philosophical distinction. The audience must decide: Can government be contained, or is decentralization the only moral solution? Thank you both for this compelling debate.
[After the debate, Tarrin Lupo enters with a handheld mic and an energy fit for an unexpected but charged discussion approaches the stage]
Tarrin Lupo: "Alright folks, that was one hell of a debate. I don't think I've ever seen a libertarian anarchist and the mother of Objectivism share a stage before. So, before you two scatter back to your respective ideological strongholds, let’s keep this going for my audience. Ayn, Ian—what do you say?"
Ayn Rand: "If we are to engage, let us do so with clarity and purpose. I do not engage in idle chatter."
Ian Freeman: "Well, Ayn, that’s something we can agree on. And I’m more than happy to keep the conversation going, especially since there’s a lot we didn’t get to dig into during the debate."
Tarrin Lupo: "Perfect. Let’s start with what I think a lot of people would love to hear: Ayn, you advocate for rational self-interest and capitalism as a moral imperative. Ian, you take a voluntarist approach, rejecting state structures entirely. What happens when those views collide? Ayn, do you see Ian’s brand of voluntarism as compatible with Objectivism?"
Ayn Rand: "Not in the least. The flaw in his argument is that he assumes a society can function in an ideological vacuum, without objective laws rooted in reason. A truly capitalist society requires a government, albeit a limited one, to protect individual rights—rights derived from reason, not arbitrary preference. Anarchy, or 'voluntarism' as he euphemistically calls it, is a rejection of objective law. It is the chaos of subjectivism disguised as a moral framework."
Ian Freeman: "And yet, Ayn, you rail against coercion in all forms, but fail to recognize that government itself—any government—is inherently coercive. You can’t claim to champion capitalism and free trade while maintaining that a state should exist to ‘protect’ these things. Protection implies force, and force is the enemy of freedom. Voluntarism isn’t an absence of order; it’s an order built organically through voluntary association and the non-aggression principle."
Tarrin Lupo: "So Ayn, what do you say to that? If individuals can voluntarily form agreements without state intervention, wouldn’t that be a more pure form of capitalism?"
Ayn Rand: "Absolutely not. A system without objective law is a contradiction in terms. The voluntary agreements Ian speaks of have no mechanism for enforcement outside of subjective consensus. Without an objective legal framework, force is inevitable. Contracts would be meaningless. The enforcement of rights cannot be left to the whims of competing private entities, as such a system would devolve into a form of legalized gangsterism. The concept of ‘voluntary law enforcement’ is self-refuting. A proper government’s sole function is to ensure force is only used in retaliation against those who initiate it."
Ian Freeman: "That’s where we fundamentally disagree. You’re assuming that people, left to their own devices, would descend into violence without a state. But history shows us that states are the greatest purveyors of violence. What’s stopping two rational individuals from making and upholding a contract without a government overseeing them? You say force is inevitable—but what about reputation systems, community arbitration, and nonviolent methods of enforcement? Government is just a middleman that injects coercion into what should be voluntary interactions."
Tarrin Lupo: "Okay, okay, I love a good back-and-forth, but let me stir the pot a little more. Ayn, your system allows for some level of government, but given how power corrupts, how do you ensure that even a ‘minimal’ government stays that way? Ian, you’re advocating for a market-based order, but isn’t there a risk of corporations effectively becoming the new state? What stops private enforcement groups from becoming mafias?"
Ayn Rand: "A proper government is structured with objective checks and balances. It is explicitly limited by a constitution founded on reason, not the shifting tides of democratic will. The moment you abandon the rule of objective law, you open the door to tyranny—not by corporations, but by those who manipulate the law to their own ends. The alternative is anarchy, which is a guarantee of force in an unregulated market. There is no rational justification for leaving rights up to the market."
Ian Freeman: "But Ayn, what you describe already exists—governments constantly overreach, constitutions get ignored, and people are left with no recourse. The difference between you and me is that I don’t believe any system of centralized authority can avoid corruption. The free market applies the most effective check on power: choice. If a security provider turns into a mafia, people can leave and take their business elsewhere. Can you say the same about a government?"
Tarrin Lupo: "Alright, before this turns into a verbal deathmatch, final thoughts. Ayn, if you could convince Ian of one thing about Objectivism, what would it be?"
Ayn Rand: "That reason, not anarchy, is the foundation of freedom. A system without an objective government is a system doomed to irrationality."
Tarrin Lupo: "Ian?"
Ian Freeman: "That true freedom can’t exist under coercion, even if it’s minimal. Voluntarism isn’t utopian—it’s just people choosing how to engage with one another without being forced."
Tarrin Lupo: "Well, my audience is going to love this one. Ayn, Ian, I appreciate the conversation. Let's see what the comments section thinks... assuming YouTube doesn't nuke them first."
[Fade to black.]