This is why you have HP's CEO voluntarily defrauding HP.
Your example is fatally flawed. The transactions I assume you're referring to -- the misrepresented dining expenses -- are transactions between HP and the restaurant, with Hurd acting as HP's agent. Since Hurd acted fraudulently, it was -- by definition -- not a voluntary transaction. Fraud is the commission of force, and thus cannot be voluntary.
both parties BELIEVE they will improve their situation
Of course. And that's the best that we can do. I'd urge you to read Human Action, by Mises, where this problem is addressed quite completely.
The thing is, only the participants themselves can truly know what their goals are, so there is no one in a position to gainsay. Indeed, sometimes the real motivation isn't even known to the individual himself. The best that we can do is to assume that each person is acting in his own self interest.
The only alternative is to have some sort of Big Brother vetting every transaction, but there's no reason to believe that BB would do any better, and there's every reason to believe that it would be far worse.
The thing is, only the participants themselves can truly know what their goals are, so there is no one in a position to gainsay
In that case, your entire argument is tautological. Two parties entering into a transaction both benefit. How do we know? Because they entered into it, so it must be good for them. How do we test this supposition? We can't, because there is no way to accumulate a list of voluntary transactions and see whether the parties benefitted or not.
By the same token, we can argue that anyone taking a decision benefits. How do we know? because they took a decision. Junkies benefit from heroin. Consumers benefit from sub-prime debt. Lending institutions benefitted from investing in junk bonds. I benefit from spending time at work arguing this point with you.
I am going to go my way and leave you to go yours. If you believe that anything two nations do voluntarily is automatically good for both of them, who am I to undermine your faith?
Your example is fatally flawed. The transactions I assume you're referring to -- the misrepresented dining expenses -- are transactions between HP and the restaurant, with Hurd acting as HP's agent. Since Hurd acted fraudulently, it was -- by definition -- not a voluntary transaction. Fraud is the commission of force, and thus cannot be voluntary.
both parties BELIEVE they will improve their situation
Of course. And that's the best that we can do. I'd urge you to read Human Action, by Mises, where this problem is addressed quite completely.
The thing is, only the participants themselves can truly know what their goals are, so there is no one in a position to gainsay. Indeed, sometimes the real motivation isn't even known to the individual himself. The best that we can do is to assume that each person is acting in his own self interest.
The only alternative is to have some sort of Big Brother vetting every transaction, but there's no reason to believe that BB would do any better, and there's every reason to believe that it would be far worse.