Analysis of Desirable Relationships

Relationships:

In any relationship, there are two individuals¹, and the possible types of relationships are relatively infinite². For any specific relationship, there are generally costs and/or benefits for each individual engaging in that relationship³. Value is specific to individuals, and changes from one individual to the next, sometimes in highly unexpected ways⁴. Swapping individuals in the relationship quickly results in disaster⁵.

The opportunity cost⁶ is the default or natural state, in absence of the opportunity to pursue or engage in a relationship. An individual's desire to engage in a relationship could be determined as a subjective perception of the value of the relationship, relative to alternatives forgone⁷. Considering the possible combinations, if both persons desire a relationship, it is likely to happen, whereas if both persons do not desire a relationship, no relationship is likely to occur⁸.

Given one party presents opportunity, and the other party does not desire the relationship, so long as no relationship occurs - the transaction is equivalent to no offer having ever been made. If the relationship does occur, despite the desire to not engage in the relationship, problems occur.

Given one party desires a specific relationship and another does not, a conflict of desires occurs. Action towards this relationship will be against the desires of one party. It is impractical and impossible to enforce obligations on undesiring individuals given the vast world population; it is clearly far easier to simply seek another mutually-desirable relationship with another person. Attempts to enforce undesirable relationships as an universal ethic quickly breaks down into an illogical and contradictory mess⁹.

If a third party interferes in a relationship between two individuals, the two individuals are now said to have an (involuntary?) relationship with the third party.

Imposing and Coerced Relationships

Given an individual's desire to not participate in a relationship, the other individual may seek to alter the terms of the relationship as to increase incentives until the point the relationship becomes desirable. Alternatively, a person may seek to impose a relationship through the following means:

• Imposing forcing a relationship on an individual regardless of the desires or actions of the other individual. Forcing, referring to overpowering the other individual's actions and desires.
• Coercion: imposing undesirable conditions or perceptions on available alternatives, as to make the relationship relatively desirable than the new imposed opportunity cost.
• Fraud: misinforming another individual as to influence an individual into a relationship, whereby that individual would not have participated given truthful information.

These imposed relationships are the basis for the concept of "violating the non-aggression principle" and why the non-aggression principle allows voluntary consensual relationships, while outlawing the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.

Footnotes

1. For the purposes of discussion, we will be dealing with human relationships, between two distinct humans.

2. A relationship can be anything from a standard employment arrangement, to a trade of grass clipping for sex (a fetish?)

3. Costs are any loss (negative) of value, and benefits are any gain (positive) in value.

4. One person may love chocolate, while another person despises the flavor. While similarities between individuals may exist, the costs and benefits for any random individuals is rarely identical.

5. An intelligent entrepreneur may hire for $100 per hour an electrical engineer to help develop a processor for a new advanced smart phone, and as a result reap major profits. A creative artist attempting to hire for $100 per hour an aroma therapy expert to help develop microprocessors would likely result in a massive failure.

6. Opportunity Cost is the cost (not restricted to monetary or financial costs) of any activity measured in terms of the value of the best alternative that is foregone. It is the sacrifice related to the second best choice among several mutually exclusive alternatives.

7. An individual may desire vanilla ice-cream more than the $5 he already possesses. The vendor may desire the $5 more than the vanilla ice-cream. Keeping his $5 and icecream in the possession of the original owners would be the opportunity cost, or default state. If the exchange (relationship) were to happen, the relationship would be desirable to both individuals.

8. [1] Given both desire to participate in a relationship and the relationship occurs, both perceive an increase in value of their opportunity cost and the relationship will likely occur naturally, consistent with desires of both parties. [2] Given both desire to not participate in a relationship and the relationship does not occur, both perceive the opportunity cost to be superior, and inaction towards a relationship is consistent with desires of both parties.

9. I decree I can murder you and you can't murder me, you decree the reverse.