Peter G. Stillman wrote: >As someone interested in politics, I am struck >by 'what countries do.' Obviously (and, I >think, as I've been re-reading especially >Ricardo, helpfully), individual (& corporate) >agents in countries act, by and large. > >But of course the laws of the country set >boundaries, sometimes quite severe, within which agents can act. > >And, I wonder -- when a country goes to war, do >we still conceptualize it as individuals acting, >or is that a case when countries act? Mises would say--as he did say--that "The hangman, not the state, executes a criminal." So I suppose he would also have to say, "The soldier, not the state, goes to war." This is, of course, true, but only trivially true, since while the hangman does indeed perform the execution, the action can only be interpreted in a social context; it will be distinguished from murder only if the victim was delivered to the hangman by the actions of other officers of the state acting within whatever judicial context exists in that country. Likewise, in the case of war, it is the soldier that fights the war but the state that "makes" war. Actions are always performed by individuals, but the individuals are always acting in a social context and their actions cannot be understood apart from that context. In the case of comparative advantage, we address the individuals because we are looking at the individual motives, which are always to seek some absolute advantage. But of course the trades themselves take place in a context of currency, laws, customs, and so forth. John C. Medaille