> "Altruism" is mentioned in the index only twice,   
> and both references are negative.   
> "Self-sacrifice" is not used at all, and   
> "sacrifice" used only in the context of an exchange.  
  
  
Mises refers (briefly) to specific examples of  
soldiers sacrificing their lives in battle and doctors  
risking their lives by exposing themselves to disease.  
Mises wrote at greater lenght on 'geniuses' whose raw  
determination causes them to ignore incentives as they  
accomplish great things-  
  
"He lives in creating and inventing. For him there is  
not leisure, only intermissions of temporary sterility  
and frustration. His incentive is not the desire to  
bring about a result, but the act of producing it. The  
accomplishment gratifies him neither mediately nor  
immediately. It does not gratify him mediately because  
his fellow men at best are unconcerned about it, more  
often even greet it with taunts, sneers, and  
persecution. Many a genius could have used his gifts  
to render his life agreeable and joyful; he did not  
even consider such a possibility and chose the thorny  
path without hesitation. The genius wants to  
accomplish what he considers his mission, even if he  
knows that he moves toward his own disaster."  
  
In a way, Mises's genius is anti social, and something  
of an isolated man- the only one in his system. Such  
people break from all norms to develop new and  
revolutionary ideas.   
  
"The creative genius is at variance with his fellow  
citizens. As the pioneer of things new and unheard of  
he is in conflict with their uncritical acceptance of  
traditional standards and values. In his eyes the  
routine of the regular citizen, the average or common  
man, is simply stupidity."  
  
Yet to Mises those who sacrifice themseves and true  
geniuses are rare, few and far between. In his system  
most people follow incentives and engage in behavior  
which is in some general ways predictable- the laws of  
supply and demand. Yet these are only general  
tendencies. Variations in specific magnitudes (due to  
changing conditions require some speculation by  
everyone-  
  
"In the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating  
system nobody is an entrepreneur and speculator. In  
any real and living economy every actor is always an  
entrepreneur and speculator; the people taken care of  
by the actors--the minor family members in the market  
society and the masses of a socialist society--are,  
although themselves not actors and therefore not  
speculators, affected by the outcome of the actors'  
speculations."  
  
and there are no exceptions to the rule that  
everything changes-  
  
"Once everything is in a state of flux, everything  
which happens is an innovation. Even when the old is  
repeated, it is an innovation because, under new  
conditions, it will have different effects. It is an  
innovation in its consequences � In any economic  
system which is in a process of change all economic  
activity is based on an uncertain future. It is  
therefore bound up in risk. It is essentially  
speculation." (Mises 1922 p180-181)  
  
So even repeated actions are innovative- cant get more  
dynamic than that.   
  
> >"We do not assert that such isolated autarkic human  
> >beings have ever lived and that the social stage of  
> >man's history was preceded by an age of independent  
> >individuals roaming like animals in search of food.  
> >The biological humanization of man's nonhuman  
> >ancestors and the emergence of the primitive social  
> >bonds were effected in the same process. Man  
> appeared  
> >on the scene of earthly events as a social being.  
> The  
> >isolated asocial man is a fictitious construction."  
> >Human Action, part 2, chapter 8  
>   
> Then the paragraph makes no sense. For the sake   
> of a "better comprehension," Mises speaks of what   
> he acknowledges never existed. I don't see that   
> as an aid to comprehension. I would rather deal   
> with man as he is, rather than with an imaginary   
> construct for the sake of supporting a particular   
> view.   
  
Mises focused primarily on social man in a dynamic  
setting because this is where he saw all the real and  
important issues. Mises did consider the limited use  
of purely fictional constructs- equilibrium analysis,  
isolated man, and the 'evenly rotating economy'. The  
difference between Mises and Neoclassicals here is  
that Mises saw such things as mere thought experiments  
of very limited value. One lesson than Mises thought  
he could empart to others using fictional conrtructs  
is that entrepreneurship disappears in his fictional  
evenly rotating economy'. The lesson here is that  
entrepreneurs deal specifically with changing  
conditions, whereas workers and capitalists would  
still have a function in the ERE. In neoclassical  
theory there is nothing but a static economy like the  
ERE. The main body of Mises' economics addresses real  
elements- perpetual change and social interaction.  
There are a few tangential bits on isolated man and a  
static economy, as pure thought experiments. These  
tangential bits hardly put him in with Walras.  
  
  
But in any case, the question is most   
> properly answered by the science of sociology,   
> not economics. Whether or not one agrees with   
> that statement, it would seem incumbent on him to   
> justify the competence of a pure economist in   
> this matter. I simply do not see that justification.  
  
  
All social theory requires some assumptions, either  
explicit or implicit, regarding sociology and  
psychology for that matter. Mises did not attempt to  
engage in psychological analysis (though Hayek did),  
and he did limited sociological analysis. So what?  
Mises was either right or wrong on these things,  
regardless of his supposed restrictions to being a  
'pure economist'. Sociological issues are unavoidable,  
and one cannot avoid making some sociological  
assumptions when doing economic analysis.   
  
  
> >Now, the  
> > > existence of such an individual is doubtful, and  
> > > cannot be confirmed from psychology, from  
> > > anthropology, or from introspection. Hence it  
> > > must be, logically, a pure a priori without any  
> > > empirical foundation. While this is implicit in  
> > > all of neoclassicism, it is explicit in Mises,  
  
It never existed, except as a thought experiment.  
Mises knew this and kept this thought experiment in  
its proper place, on the sidelines. In neoclassical  
theory this fictional person is at the core of their  
theory.   
  
As for some of the other stuff about methodological  
individualism, yes, Mises was an individualist- one  
who recognized that economics is all about the  
interaction of mutually dependant individuals-  
  
"It is uncontested that in the sphere of human action  
social entities have real existence. Nobody ventures  
to deny that nations, states, municipalities, parties,  
religious communities, are real factors determining  
the course of human events. Methodological  
individualism, far from contesting the significance of  
such collective wholes, considers it as one of its  
main tasks to describe and to analyze their becoming  
and their disappearing, their changing structures, and  
their operation. And it chooses the only method fitted  
to solve this problem satisfactorily."  
  
"Real man is necessarily always a member of a social  
whole. It is even impossible to imagine the existence  
of a man separated from the rest of mankind and not  
connected with society. Man as man is the product of a  
social evolution. His most eminent feature, reason,  
could only emerge within the framework of social  
mutuality. There is no thinking which does not depend  
on the concepts and notions of language. But speech is  
manifestly a social phenomenon. Man is always the  
member of a collective. As the whole is both logically  
and temporally prior to its parts or members, the  
study of the individual is posterior to the study of  
society. The only adequate method for the scientific  
treatment of human problems is the method of  
universalism or collectivism."  
  
So yes, there is such a thing as collectives, and were  
are all connected by division of labor. But only  
individuals think, perceive value, and act. Thus,  
methodological individualism is the right approach for  
economics. A fake static economy and a fake isolated  
man have no part in the main body of Mises's theory,  
as is the case with Walras. Mises focused on realistic  
theory with realistic agents, and only toyed with  
neoclassical type contructions as pure thought  
experiments.   
  
  
> And please feel free to send me your paper off-line;  
> I would like to see it.  
  
I did not bring my thumb drive today, but will send it  
later.   
  
Doug Mackenzie