2. Types of Interpersonal Action, Voluntary Exchange and the Contractual Society
We'll develop an analysis of the workings of a society based purely on voluntary action, entirely unhampered by violence or threats of violence.
We shall examine interpersonal actions that are purely voluntary and have no trace of hegemonic relations.
Then, after working out the laws of the unhampered market, we shall trace the nature and results
of hegemonic relations, of actions based on violence or the threat of violence.
We shall note the various effects of violent interference with voluntary actions, and shall
consider the consequences of approaches to a regime of total hegemony, of pure slavery
or subjection.
At present, we shall confine our discussion to an analysis of actions unhampered by the
existence of violence of man against man.
The major form of voluntary interaction is voluntary interpersonal exchange.
A gives up a good to B in exchange for a good that B gives up to A. The essence of the exchange
is that both people make it because they expect that it will benefit them, otherwise they
would not have agreed to the exchange.
A necessary condition for an exchange to take place is that the two goods have reverse valuations
on the respective value scales of the two parties to the exchange.
Thus suppose A and B are the two exchangers, and A gives B good X in exchange for good
Y. In order for this exchange to take place, the following must have been their value scales
before making the exchange. To person A, good Y outranks good X. To person B, good X outranks
Good Y. A possesses Good X and B possesses Good Y, and each evaluates the good of the
other more highly than his own. After the exchange is made, both A and B have shifted
to a higher position on their respective value scales. Thus the conditions for an exchange
to take place are that the goods are valued in reverse order by the two parties, and that
Each of the parties knows of the existence of the other and the goods that he possesses.
Without knowledge of the other person's assets, no exchange of these assets could take place.
It is clear that the things that must be exchanged are goods, which will be useful to the receiving
party.
The goods may be present or future goods, or claims to future goods, which may be considered
are considered as equivalent to future goods. They may be capital goods or consumers' goods, labor or nature-given factors.
At any rate, the objects of an exchange must be scarce means to human ends, since if they were available in abundance for all,
they would be general conditions of human welfare and not objects of human action.
If something were a general condition of human welfare, there would be no need to give something up to acquire it, and it would not become the object of exchange.
If the goods in question are unique goods with a supply of one unit, then the problem of when exchanges will or will not be made is a simple one.
If A has a vase and B a typewriter, if each knows of the other's asset, and if A values
the typewriter more highly and B values the vase more highly, there will be an exchange.
If on the other hand, either A or B values whatever he has more highly than what the
other has, then an exchange will not take place.
Similarly, an exchange will not take place if either party has no knowledge that the other party has, a vase or a typewriter.
On the other hand, if the goods are available in supplies of homogeneous units, the problem becomes more complex.
Here, in determining how far exchanges of the two goods will go, the law of marginal utility becomes the decisive factor.
Strictly, the law of marginal utility is also applicable to the case where the supply is
only one unit, and we can say that, in the example above, exchange will take place if,
for A, the marginal utility of good Y is greater than the marginal utility of good X, and vice
versa for B.
If Jones and Smith have certain quantities of units of goods x and y in their possession,
then in order for Jones to trade one unit of x for one unit of y, the following conditions
have to be met.
To Jones, the marginal utility of the added unit of y must be greater than the marginal
utility of the unit of x given up, and to Smith, the marginal utility of the added unit
of X must be greater than the marginal utility of the unit of Y given up.
The marginal utilities of the goods to Jones and to Smith are, of course, not comparable,
since they cannot be measured, and the two value scales cannot be reduced to one measure
or scale.
However, as Jones continues to exchange with Smith units of X for units of Y, the marginal
Marginal utility of X to Jones increases because of the Law of Marginal Utility. Furthermore,
the marginal utility of the added unit of Y continues to decrease as Jones' stock
of Y increases because of the operation of this law. Eventually, therefore, Jones will
reach a point where, in any further exchange of X for Y, the marginal utility of X will
will be greater than the marginal utility of the added unit of Y, so that he will make
no further exchange. Furthermore, Smith is in a similar position. As he continues to
exchange Y for X, for him the marginal utility of Y increases, and the marginal utility of
the added unit of X decreases, with the operation of the law of marginal utility. He too will
will eventually reach a point where a further exchange will lower rather than raise his
position on his value scale, so that he will decline to make any further exchange.
Since it takes two to make a bargain, Jones and Smith will exchange units of X for units
of Y until one of them reaches a point beyond which further exchange will lead to loss,
rather than profit.
Let's suppose that Jones begins with a position where his assets, stock of goods, consist
of a supply of five horses and zero cows, while Smith begins with assets of five cows
and zero horses.
How much, if any, exchanges of one cow for one horse will be affected is reflected in
the value scales of the two people.
It is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of exchange in a developed economic
system.
Interpersonal exchanges have an enormous influence on productive activities.
Their existence means that goods and units of goods have not only direct use value for
the producer, but also exchange value.
In other words, goods may now be exchanged for other goods of greater usefulness to the
A man will exchange a unit of a good so long as the goods that it can command in exchange
have greater value to him than the value it had in direct use, that is, so long as its
exchange value is greater than its direct use value.
In the example above, the first two horses that Jones exchanged and the first two cows
The existence and possibilities of exchange open up for producers the avenue of producing
for a market, rather than for themselves.
of Attempting to Maximize His Product in Isolation by Producing Goods Solely for His Own Use.
Each person can now produce goods in anticipation of their exchange value, and exchange these
goods for others that are more valuable to him.
It is evident that since this opens a new avenue for the utility of goods, it becomes
possible for each person to increase his productivity.
Through praxeology, therefore, we know that only gains can come to every participant in
exchange, and that each must benefit by the transaction, otherwise he would not engage
in it.
Empirically, we know that the exchange economy has made possible an enormous increase in productivity
and satisfactions for all the participants.
Thus any person can produce goods either for his own direct use or for purposes of exchange
with others for goods that he desires.
In the former case, he is the consumer of his own product.
In the latter case, he produces in the service of other consumers.
That is, he produces for a market.
In either case, it is clear that on the unhampered market, it is the consumers who dictate the
course of production.
At any time, a good or a unit of a good may have for its possessor either direct use value
or exchange value, or a mixture of both, and whichever is the greater is the determinant
of his action.
Examples of goods with only direct use value to their owner are those in an isolated economy,
or such goods as eyeglasses ground to an individual prescription.
On the other hand, producers of such eyeglasses or of surgical instruments find no direct
use value in these products, but only exchange value.
Many goods, as in the foregoing example of exchange, have both direct and exchange value
For the latter goods, changing conditions may cause direct use value to replace exchange value in the actor's hierarchy of values, or vice versa.
Thus, if a person with a stock of wine happens to lose his taste for wine, the previous greater use value that wine had for him will change,
will change, and the wine's exchange value will take precedence over its use value, which
has now become almost nil. Similarly, a grown person may exchange the toys that he had used
as a child now that their use value has greatly declined. On the other hand, the exchange
value of goods may decline, causing their possessors to use them directly rather than
and Exchange them.
Thus, a milliner might make a hat for purposes of exchange, but some minor defect might cause
its expected exchange value to dwindle so that the milliner decides to wear the hat
herself.
One of the most important factors causing a change in the relationship between direct
use value and exchange value is an increase in the number of units of a supply available.
From the law of marginal utility, we know that an increase in the supply of a good available
decreases the marginal utility of the supply for direct use.
Therefore, the more units of supply are available, the more likely will the exchange value of
the marginal unit be greater than its value in direct use, and the more likely will its
owner be to exchange it.
The more horses that Jones had in his stock and the more cows Smith had, the more eager
would they be to exchange them.
Conversely, a decrease in supply will increase the likelihood that direct use value will
predominate.
The network of voluntary interpersonal exchanges forms a society.
It also forms a pattern of interrelations known as the market.
A society formed solely by the market has an unhampered market or a free market, a market
not burdened by the interference of violent action.
A society based on voluntary exchanges is called a contractual society.
In contrast to the hegemonic society based on the rule of violence, the contractual type
The type of society is based on freely entered contractual relations between individuals.
Agreements by individuals to make exchanges are called contracts.
And a society based on voluntary contractual agreements is a contractual society.
It is the society of the unhampered market.
In a contractual society, each individual benefits by the exchange contract that he
makes.
An individual is an actor free to make his own decisions at every step of the way, thus
the relations among people in an unhampered market are symmetrical.
There is equality in the sense that each person has equal power to make his own exchange decisions.
This is in contrast to a hegemonic relationship where power is asymmetrical, where the dictator
Miser makes all the decisions for his subjects except the one decision to obey, as it were,
at bayonet point.
Thus the distinguishing features of the contractual society, of the unhampered market, are self-responsibility,
freedom from violence, full power to make one's own decisions, except the decision
One to Institute Violence Against Another, and Benefits for All Participating Individuals.
The distinguishing features of a hegemonic society are the rule of violence, the surrender
of the power to make one's own decisions to a dictator, and exploitation of subjects
for the benefit of the masters.
It will be seen below that existing societies may be totally hegemonic, totally contractual,
or various mixtures of different degrees of the two, and the nature and consequences of
these various mixed economies and totally hegemonic societies will be analyzed.
Before we examine the exchange process further, it must be considered that in order for a
person to exchange anything, he must first possess it, or own it.
He gives up the ownership of good X in order to obtain the ownership of good Y.
Ownership by one or more owners implies exclusive control and use of the goods owned, and the
goods owned are known as property.
Freedom from violence implies that no one may seize the property of another by means
What Goods Become Property?
What goods become property?
Obviously, only scarce means are property.
General conditions of welfare, since they are abundant to all, are not the objects of
any action, and therefore cannot be owned or become property.
On the free market it is nonsense to say that someone owns the heir.
Only if a good is scarce is it necessary for anyone to obtain it or ownership of it for
his use.
The only way that a man could assume ownership of the heir is to use violence to enforce this
claim.
Such action could not occur on the unhampered market.
On the free unhampered market, a man can acquire property and scarce goods as follows.
1.
In the first place, each man has ownership over his own self, over his will and actions,
and the manner in which he will exert his own labor.
2.
He acquires scarce nature-given factors, either by appropriating hitherto unused factors for
for his own use, or by receiving them as a gift from someone else, who in the last analysis
must have appropriated them as hitherto unused factors.
Analytically, receiving a factor from someone as a gift simply pushes the problem back another
stage.
At some point, the actor must have appropriated it from the realm of unused factors, as Crusoe
appropriated the unused land on the island.
3. He acquires capital goods or consumers' goods either by mixing his own labor with
nature-given factors to produce them, or by receiving them as a gift from someone else.
As in the previous case, gifts must eventually resolve themselves into some actor's production
of the goods by the use of his own labor. Clearly, it will be nature-given factors,
Capital Goods and Durable Consumers Goods that are likely to be handed down through
gifts, since non-durable consumers goods will probably be quickly consumed.
4.
He may exchange any type of factor, labor service, nature-given factor, capital good,
consumers good, for any type of factor.
It is clear that gifts and exchanges as a source of property must eventually be resolved
into self-ownership, appropriation of unused nature-given factors, and production of capital
and consumers' goods, as the ultimate sources of acquiring property in a free economic system.
In order for the giving or exchanging of goods to take place, they must first be obtained
by individual actors in one of these ways.
The logical sequence of events is, therefore, a man owns himself.
He appropriates unused nature-given factors for his ownership.
He uses these factors to produce capital goods and consumers' goods which become his own.
He uses up the consumers' goods and or gives them and the capital goods away to others.
He exchanges some of these goods for other goods that had come to be owned in the same
These are the methods of acquiring goods that obtain on the free market, and they include all but the method of violent or other invasive expropriation of the property of others.
The problem of self-ownership is complicated by the question of children.
Children cannot be considered self-owners because they are not yet in possession of the powers of reason necessary to direct their actions.
The fact that children are under the hegemonic authority of their parents until they are old enough to become self-owning beings is therefore not contrary to our assumption of a purely free market.
Since children are not capable of self-ownership, authority over them will rest in some individuals. On an unhampered market, it would rest in their producers, the parents.
Parents.
On the other hand, the property of the parents in this unique case is not exclusive.
The parents may not injure the children at will.
Children not long after birth begin to acquire the powers of reasoning human beings and embody
the potential development of full self-owners.
Therefore, the child will, on the free market, be defended from violent actions in the same
way as an adult.
In contrast to general conditions of welfare, which on the free market cannot be subject
to appropriation as property, scarce goods in use and production must always be under
someone's control, and therefore must always be property.
On the free market, the goods will be owned by those who either produce them, first put
them to use, or receive them in gifts.
Similarly, under a system of violence and hegemonic bonds, someone or some people must
superintend and direct the operations of these goods.
Whoever performs these functions, in effect, owns these goods as property, regardless of
the legal definition of ownership.
This applies to persons and their services, as well as to material goods.
On the free market each person is a complete owner of himself, whereas under a system of
full hegemonic bonds he is subject to the ownership of others, with the exception of
the one decision not to revolt against the authority of the owner.
Thus violent or hegemonic regimes do not and cannot abolish property, which derives from
The Fundamentals of Human Action, but can only transfer it from one person or set of people, the producers or natural self-owners, to another set.
We may now briefly sum up the various types of human action.
1. Isolation. Autistic exchange.
2. Interpersonal action.
A. Invasive Action 1. War 2. Murder, Assault 3. Robbery 4. Slavery
B. Non-invasive Action 1. Gifts 2. Voluntary Exchange
This and subsequent chapters are devoted to an analysis of a non-invasive society, particularly
that constituted by Voluntary Interpersonal Exchange.