D.1. Relations:
I. Actions and inactions of people which have good character for one another and which bind people together are relations.
II. Actions of men in any social setting affect each other directly or indirectly and can have Good Characters, and where they have such Characters they bind men into Relations.
Axiomatic Derivation:
1. Men in any social setting engage with one another directly or indirectly.
2. In all engagements, actions of men affect each other. Or that no engagement can be such that only actors affect themselves.
3. Therefore, men in any social setting affect each other.
4. These effects can have Good Characters for the affected.
5. The 4. implies Human Actions, in a social setting, can have Good Characters.
6. The opposite of Human Actions is Human Inactions.
7. It is possible for Human Inactions too have Good Characters.
8. Observation - I: Not Good Actions and Inactions.
While we discuss Good Characters of Actions, or Inactions, how shall we proceed to study actions, and inactions which thwart the Good Characters in an Economy? What are they? Do they exist? If so, why do they exist given the primacy of Need Satiation? Such questions deserve our attention. And as such, we shall endeavour to expand our view of Good Characters by studying the peculiar cases of Not-Good Character. Something I have attempted around this idea can be found using the link to my Patreon Page: https://www.patreon.com/posts/55903061
8. Observation - II: Good Actions and Inactions of Machines.
While Menger points to Human actions and inactions, in age of automation, and increasing pseudo intelligence, we shall discuss Good Characters of Actions, or Inactions of the Machines, and it affects.
Explanations:
E.1. Just as material goods can have Good characters, our actions can have good character too when engaging with one another. And by the same token, inactions of some may facilitate actions of others, and thereby attain a good character too. (See Goods)
E.2. Consider the following instances:
a) A Red light of traffic induces an inaction of some which facilitates the actions of others facing a green light, when all of these people are using the same road i.e. they are somehow related to, engaged with, each other.
b) A copyright which implies inaction of other writers, and publishers such that it facilitates the actions of copyright holders. Promises made between friends, no matter how informal they are, imply a set of actions and inactions which serve the group agenda. The Good Will of customers too imply their inaction of buying from others which facilitate future revenue of the firm.
E.3. Thus, in formal or informal, in domestic affairs or business, in all spheres of life, a set of our actions and inactions shape our dealings with one another. And since these actions, and inactions have good character i.e. they serve our need, we have knowledge of them, and we have command over them, these actions and inactions are Goods.
E.4. And here rests the definition of any human relation. These actions and inactions establish a relation between people. For instance, in absence of traffic rules on a road everyone considers others as an externality with random, unpredictable behaviour. However, once the needs of all drivers are understood and rules are made and enforced, those who were previously unrelated now become related with one another. Now everyone checks the Red light, for instance, and becomes inactive for a few seconds to facilitate others driving like him or her who will in turn do the same after a few seconds.
E.5. All human relations now can be viewed as sets of actions and inactions, expected or conducted, by two or more individuals affecting each other such that these have a good character for some of the related people.
Reference: Menger, Carl (2004). Principles of Economics, Online edition, The Mises Institute, 2004. (Chapter 01 page 54)