Peter G. Stillman wrote:  
>As someone interested in politics, I am struck   
>by 'what countries do.'  Obviously (and, I   
>think, as I've been re-reading especially   
>Ricardo, helpfully), individual (& corporate)   
>agents in countries act, by and large.  
>  
>But of course the laws of the country set   
>boundaries, sometimes quite severe, within which agents can act.  
>  
>And, I wonder -- when a country goes to war, do   
>we still conceptualize it as individuals acting,   
>or is that a case when countries act?  
  
  
Mises would say--as he did say--that "The   
hangman, not the state, executes a criminal." So   
I suppose he would also have to say, "The   
soldier, not the state, goes to war." This is, of   
course, true, but only trivially true, since   
while the hangman does indeed perform the   
execution, the action can only be interpreted in   
a social context; it will be distinguished from   
murder only if the victim was delivered to the   
hangman by the actions of other officers of the   
state acting within whatever judicial context   
exists in that country. Likewise, in the case of   
war, it is the soldier that fights the war but   
the state that "makes" war. Actions are always   
performed by individuals, but the individuals are   
always acting in a social context and their   
actions cannot be understood apart from that context.  
  
In the case of comparative advantage, we address   
the individuals because we are looking at the   
individual motives, which are always to seek some   
absolute advantage. But of course the trades   
themselves take place in a context of currency, laws, customs, and so forth.  
  
  
John C. Medaille