May I suggest -- once again at risk of getting in too deep -- that what Pat   
means by 'individualist' is what is more commonly called 'methodological   
individualist'.  
  
What is 'methodological individualism'? As I understand it, it  is the   
working assumption that human social phenomena may be explained without   
remainder as the outcomes of action by individuals: and that any additional   
explanans (e.g. 'collective' plans, intentions etc., 'laws of history',   
'general will' and so forth) are redundant. There can be no 'proof' of the   
'correctness' of this working assumption. It is part of the 'hard core' of   
economics' which we stick with so long as the models we construct on that   
basis seem to work.  
  
Why are we quarrelling about this? And how could it possibly need a defence?  
  
Antony Waterman