There would be officers of the law, magistrates and police; but they would only execute the law.

Under such a state of affairs, suppose that you owned an iron foundry, and that I was a hatter.

I should need iron for my business.

Naturally I should seek to solve this problem: "How shall I best procure the iron necessary for my business with the least possible amount of labor ?" Considering my situation, and my means of knowledge, I should discover that the best thing for me to do would be to make hats, and sell them to a Belgian who would give me iron in exchange.
But you, being the owner of an iron foundry, and considering my case, would say to yourself: "I shall be obliged to _compel_ that fellow to come to my shop." You, accordingly, take your sword and pistols, and, arming your numerous retinue, proceed to the frontier, and, at the moment I am engaged in making my trade, you cry out to me: "Stop that, or I will blow your brains out!" "But, my lord, I am in need of iron." "I have it to sell." "But, sir, you ask too much for it." "I have my reasons for that." "But, my good sir, I also have my reasons for preferring cheaper iron." "Well, we shall see who shall decide between your reasons and mine! Soldiers, advance!" In short, you forbid the entry of the Belgian iron, and prevent the export of my hats.
Under the condition of things which we have supposed (that is, under a _regime_ of liberty), you cannot deny that that would be, on your part, manifestly an act of oppression and spoliation.
Accordingly, I should resort to the law, the magistrate, and the power of the government.

They would intervene.