I'm uncertain if others have noticed an all-too-common, yet unspoken, sleight-of-hand lurking in this question: a leap from mass-society (nation-state) to a hypothetical example of individuals interacting in a very narrow way. (Like others, I can only smell the churchiness of Ancapism, mainly due to the Crusoe-like qualities therein, but, I don't wish to be hasty...)
This maneuver is important to recognize for a few reasons. First, it superimposes the abstractions through which state/economy conceives individuals: these are so-called incentives, exchange, etc, which make for so-called rational actors. The question arising immediately in the scenario would be: what is the quality of relations between the two people involved? Then, can these relations be considered 'rational' (ex: for mutual benefit)?
I would imagine this relation isn't nearly as abstract and/or rational as it's made out to be here for its explanatory power, that is, the power to persuade and convince. The people involved probably know each other (perhaps even intimately), interact with some regularity, thus have some history as well as overlapping relationships with others, etc, you know, like real living humans do.
As far as I can tell, it is the construction of the nation-state which has continually fractured the variegated relations we have with one another to create an anti-society of strangers of the type posed in the question. We find our lives under threat of constant enclosure, a continuing process of 'primitive accumulation,' within and without simultaneously. So, in one way the question undoes itself, since it is the very processes of a State which create the type of people/relations posed in the first place!
In addition, there are some surviving societies, as well as many more recorded examples non-extant (thanks to the dominant nation-state paradigm attempting now to go global super-state on us), in which telling anyone what to do is taboo, a no-no, if even conceivable at all.
That's where I'm inclined to go and how I wish to live in terms of this question and all it's underlying premises. While I realize this will not be 'absolute' or 'perfect,' I actively seek out places and people where this is ever more realizable.
Lastly, I have no good reason to equate, subverting, undermining, and disrupting this top-down paradigm with any kind of 'suppression' for what I think by now are obvious reasons following the above.
edit for clarity; and again