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