Doug Mackenzie wrote:  
  
>"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."  
  
Sounds a bit Nietzschean.  
  
  
  
>All social theory requires some assumptions, either  
>explicit or implicit, regarding sociology and  
>psychology for that matter.  
  
Exactly!  
  
>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.  
  
All of economics is rooted in some notions of   
sociology and psychology. One cannot say of   
errors in these areas, "so what?" because it   
these are wrong, everything is wrong; a theory   
can be no stronger then its foundations. In order   
for economics to be a science, it must root   
itself in the higher sciences and subject itself   
to their discipline; without this, any science   
becomes merely circular and ideological, an   
"undisciplined conversation." And in such   
conversations, agreement is impossible because   
there is no standard of truth, which is what the higher science provides.  
  
But on Mises's own terms, the case seems   
impossible. For if Mises is engaged in an   
"economics of meaning", as you assert (and as I   
agree), and if meaning is derived from a   
particular social setting, as is empirically   
true, then how can a methodological individualism   
be valid? In my opinion, Mises can never bridge   
the gap that he acknowledges, the gap between the   
individual and the society. His very method   
precludes him from given a rational account of this bridge.  
  
  
>So yes, there is such a thing as collectives, and were  
>are all connected by division of labor.  
  
Isn't rather problematic to say that a "division" connects us?  
  
>  But only  
>individuals think, perceive value, and act.  
  
Not quite correct. We only perceive the actions   
of individuals and infer the actions of society.   
One might make an analogy to the wave-particle   
problem in physics; only the particle is  ever   
seen, and the wave is inferred from patterns of   
particles. We cannot "see" the probability wave,   
because it is a mathematical construct, but   
without it you cannot have the particle.  
  
>  Thus,  
>methodological individualism is the right approach for  
>economics.  
  
MI decides the issue before properly asking the   
question. And in any case, it is a case beyond the competence of economists.  
  
  
John C. Medaille