Doug Mackenzie wrote:  
  
>  
> > But he doesn't deal with it; he merely asserts  
> > that his method can, but he doesn't attempt to  
> > account for the fact that individual attitudes  
> > are already socially formed before anyone acts.  
>  
>That is, socially formed by the interaction of  
>individuals in past time periods.  
  
...which acts are, in turn. socially formed by   
the interaction of individuals in even more   
remote time periods, which are themselves   
socially formed by... and so forth. Therefore,   
the attempt to account for actions by   
methodological individualism suffers from   
infinite regression,  going back, no doubt, to   
some primordial "individual" act, one likely   
having something to do with apples.  
  
Mises does pay lip service to "society," but his   
explanation is no different from other   
reductionists who don't. Isn't it better to ask   
why reductionism is the first place, rather than   
merely give that reductionism a thin veneer of   
novel and quasi-philosophical terms?  
  
John C. Medaille