DW McKenzie wrote:  
  
>Mises assumed no such thing. If you read Human Action  
>you would know that Mises assumed only that  
>individuals undertake purposeful actions. Mises  
>allowed for altruism, self sacrifice, and blind  
>determination.  
  
"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.  
  
>As for being autonomous, Mises saw this  
>a purely fictional. Moreover, Mises rejected the  
>notion of an isolated autonomous man as a part of his  
>theory-  
>  
>  
>"If praxeology speaks of the solitary individual,  
>acting on his own behalf only and independent of  
>fellow men, it does so for the sake of a better  
>comprehension of the problems of social cooperation.  
  
This does not seem like a rejection.  
  
>"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. 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.  
  
  
>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,  
>  
>No it is not explicit, but explicitely denied. I have  
>to wonder where you got such a false impression of  
>Mises.  
>  
>  
> > I do believe that Mises is absolutely right about  
> > capitalist equilibrium;  
>  
>TO Mises capitalism has no equilibrium. I thought I  
>had already made this clear in my last post.  
  
But I agreed that Mises rejects equilibrium; why   
seek a quarrel where there is agreement?  
  
And please feel free to send me your paper off-line; I would like to see it.  
  
  
John C. Medaille