I did not mean to denigrate the "epistemic status" of praxeology in the least. You'll see why below.

I do acknowledge that I took your article to places where you did not. The stress on individuals' actions does imply, though, I think, a form of radical individualism. I have taken praxeology to be overall an attempt to arrive at a Lockean individualism without his problematic (to say the least) "State of Nature" paradigm. I was also influenced by its authors' (Rothbard, et al.) known attitude regarding the sovereignty of the individual and your own description of yourself as an "anarcho-capitalist."

I stretched my Response in that direction because I have two more Responses I want to make. In one I'll relate an ethic of justice I have developed that follows from the observation that human beings have no choice but to "effect choices" (which obviously involves taking actions--which I got from Warren J. Samuels). In the other I'll be addressing the inevitable place of institutions in the economy and how making an (audacious) adjustment to our monetary system (which follows from that ethic) would make the supply of money and (therefore) the economy as a whole fully self-regulating (among other good things): the means for engaging in fiscal or monetary 'policies' to 'manage' the economy would not even exist.