The state's interventions into human affairs appear bewilderingly diverse: drug prohibitions and income taxes, rent controls and military conscription, licensing requirements and tariffs on foreign goods. Observers confronting this maze of restrictions, extractions, and mandates might conclude that government action defies systematic analysis, that each intervention must be evaluated on its own terms without reference to any unifying principle. Murray Rothbard demonstrated otherwise. In his 1970 work Power and Market, Rothbard showed that every conceivable government intervention falls into exactly three categories, and that understanding these categories reveals the common thread of aggression running through all state action.
The framework Rothbard developed distinguishes autistic intervention, binary intervention, and triangular intervention. These three types exhaust the logical possibilities for coercive interference with voluntary human action. Autistic intervention occurs when the state commands an individual regarding the use of their own body or property, when no exchange relationship is involved. Binary intervention occurs when the state compels an exchange between itself and the subject, as in taxation or conscription. Triangular intervention occurs when the state dictates or forbids the terms under which third parties may exchange with each other, as in price controls or occupational licensing. No fourth category exists because these three types cover every possible relationship between intruder and subject.
The term "autistic" in this context carries no medical connotation; Rothbard borrowed it from the economic literature where it denotes action performed by an individual in isolation, affecting only themselves. Autistic intervention occurs when the state commands a person regarding what they may or may not do with their own body and property, with no exchange relationship involved. The intruder simply issues orders: you shall not consume this substance, you shall salute this flag, you shall not speak these words, you shall not worship in this manner. The command targets the individual's autonomous action over their own person and possessions.
Drug prohibition exemplifies autistic intervention with particular clarity. When the state forbids an individual from possessing or consuming a substance, it does not compel any exchange, nor does it interfere in any transaction between parties. It simply commands: you shall not use your body in this way, you shall not hold this item on your property. The individual who wishes to consume cannabis or heroin harms no one but themselves, if harm occurs at all, yet the state presumes to override their judgment about their own well-being. Restrictions on speech, religious observance, and sexual conduct between consenting adults fall into the same category, as do seatbelt mandates, helmet laws, and regulations on what substances an individual may put into their own body.
The violence inherent in autistic intervention becomes visible only when someone disobeys. The peaceful smoker of marijuana becomes a criminal subject to kidnapping, imprisonment, and the destruction of their livelihood. The dissenter who refuses the mandated salute faces punishment not for harming anyone but for exercising dominion over their own body in ways the state disapproves. Autistic intervention reveals the state's claim to co-ownership of every individual's person, the assertion that your body belongs partly to the collective and may therefore be directed toward approved uses.
Binary intervention establishes a hegemonic relationship between two parties: the state and the individual subject. The state compels an exchange between itself and the citizen, forcing the subject to give something (money, labor, time) in return for whatever the state decides to provide, if anything. Taxation is the paradigmatic binary intervention: the government demands payment under threat of violence, and the citizen has no choice in whether to participate or what services they receive in return. The exchange is binary in the sense that only two parties are involved, but it is hegemonic in that one party dictates the terms while the other obeys.
The income tax demonstrates the binary structure with particular force. The state claims a percentage of everything you earn before you even receive it, withholding your production at the source. You receive in return whatever public services the government happens to provide, whether you value them or not, whether you would have chosen to purchase them or not. The exchange is compulsory, the terms are non-negotiable, and resistance is met with escalating penalties culminating in imprisonment. Rothbard observed that taxation differs from robbery only in its perceived legitimacy; the robber at least has the honesty to present his demand as a crime.
Conscription represents binary intervention in its most brutal form. The state compels the subject to exchange their body, their labor, and potentially their life for whatever compensation the government sees fit to provide. Rothbard called conscription "slavery" without qualification, noting that the conscript serves under threat of imprisonment or death, performs labor they did not choose, and receives payment the state determines. The binary relationship here strips away all pretense: one party commands, the other obeys, and the exchange benefits the commander at the expense of the commanded. Compulsory jury service, mandatory community service, and forced purchase requirements like automobile insurance all follow the same binary structure, differing only in degree.
Triangular intervention involves three parties: the state and a pair of would-be exchangers whose transaction the state either dictates or forbids. Where autistic intervention commands an isolated individual and binary intervention compels exchange with the state itself, triangular intervention reaches into the voluntary agreements between private parties and overrides their terms. Price controls, licensing requirements, tariffs, product regulations, and labor mandates all fall within this category, making triangular intervention the most visible and most discussed form of government economic policy.
Price ceilings demonstrate the mechanics of triangular intervention. When the state decrees that landlords may not charge more than a specified rent, it inserts itself into every lease agreement in the jurisdiction, forbidding terms that both parties might otherwise accept. The tenant who would willingly pay more to secure housing and the landlord who would willingly provide it at that price find their voluntary exchange prohibited. The consequences are predictable: shortages emerge as quantity demanded exceeds quantity supplied at the artificial price, quality deteriorates as landlords lose incentive to maintain properties they cannot profitably rent, and black markets develop as parties seek to evade the restriction. Minimum wage laws produce the mirror image effect, creating surpluses of labor (unemployment) by forbidding exchanges below the mandated price.
Occupational licensing illustrates triangular intervention through prohibition. The state forbids individuals from providing services unless they obtain permission, effectively outlawing voluntary exchanges between willing providers and willing customers. The unlicensed barber and the customer who would hire them are both prevented from acting on their own judgment about the acceptability of the service. Licensing claims to protect consumers but in practice protects incumbent providers from competition, raises prices, and excludes precisely those practitioners who lack the resources to navigate bureaucratic requirements. Tariffs operate similarly, forbidding citizens from exchanging with foreign producers on terms both parties would accept, forcing domestic consumers to subsidize domestic producers through artificially elevated prices.
These three categories exhaust the logical possibilities because they cover every relationship between the intruder and those affected by the intervention. Autistic intervention affects only the individual commanded; binary intervention affects the individual and the commanding intruder; triangular intervention affects two private parties whose exchange the intruder controls. No government action escapes this classification. Every regulation, every tax, every prohibition, every mandate can be analyzed by asking: does this command an individual's autonomous action, compel exchange with the state, or override voluntary exchange between private parties?
The typology reveals what interventionist rhetoric obscures: the common thread of aggression running through all state action. Whether the state tells you what to do with your own body, takes your property under threat of violence, or forbids you from trading with willing partners, the mechanism is always coercive substitution of the intruder's will for voluntary choice. Rothbard called these hegemonic relationships to contrast them with contractual ones. In a contractual relationship, both parties benefit from voluntary agreement; in a hegemonic relationship, one party commands while the other obeys, and the benefit flows to the commander.
The framework also explains why intervention tends to expand. Each act of interference creates distortions that seem to call for further interference. Price ceilings create shortages; the state responds with rationing. Taxation reduces production; the state responds with subsidies to favored industries. Licensing restricts supply; the state responds with programs to increase supply. The mixed economy spirals because the planners can never possess the dispersed knowledge that market prices aggregate, and their attempts to correct problems created by earlier interventions generate new problems requiring new interventions. Rothbard's typology makes this dynamic visible by showing that all interventions share the same hegemonic structure, and therefore all produce similar patterns of failure.
The practical implication for those who value liberty follows directly from the analysis. Understanding that every intervention is a form of aggression, differing only in its target, clarifies what resistance means. The smoker of prohibited substances, the tax evader, and the unlicensed practitioner all engage in the same fundamental act: refusing to submit to hegemonic command, insisting on the right to govern their own person, property, and exchanges. Technology increasingly enables this refusal, as encryption defeats surveillance necessary for autistic intervention, Bitcoin undermines the financial controls necessary for binary intervention, and anonymous markets route around the information requirements of triangular intervention. The state's control depends on knowledge it cannot possess when individuals choose not to provide it.
Rothbard's intervention typology, developed over half a century ago, provides the permanent framework for understanding state aggression regardless of whatever new forms it takes. Drug prohibition and central bank digital currencies, military conscription and carbon taxes, medieval guild restrictions and modern occupational licensing all fall within the same three categories. The analysis applies equally to interventions yet to be invented because it captures the logical structure of coercion itself. Once you grasp that the state can only command your isolated action, compel exchange with itself, or override your exchanges with others, the infinite variety of interventionist policy collapses into a limited repertoire of aggression.