In determining what constitutes a violation of the free market, it is essential to remember that force, as was noted above, is a subcategory of human action. Force implies some positive action, which interferes with another individual's actions and choices. Non-action, on the other hand, cannot by itself constitute an instance of force (

For example, if Crusoe offers to trade his bamboo sticks for Friday's berries and Friday consents to the exchange, then this arrangement is clearly peaceful and voluntary. Suppose, on the other hand, that Friday declines to participate in such a trade, for whatever reason. Because his failure to trade is not a positive action, it is not an act of "force" against Crusoe. Every human action, we must remember, requires a cooperation of means to achieve an end. If Friday fails to make his berries available to Crusoe's ends, Crusoe remains fully capable of performing any actions that use means under his ownership. He cannot, however, appropriate means produced by Friday, unless Friday consents to make his means available for a particular end. To require that Friday allot to Crusoe the non-consensual use of the fruits of his actions would be to subjugate his action to Crusoe's will—which would surely defy any common-sense understanding of the phrase "peaceful action."

^Previous