No it's not.
Discussion
Are you against the axioms or methodoloty? Or do you disagree with the predictions?
Yes. I think methodological individualism is a highly problematic framework that does not capture the realities of the human condition. Now, as a classical liberal, my political philosophy is grounded in individualism. But unlike Austrians and libertarians, I do not completely deny the relevance of collective considerations such as negative externalities and collective action problems. I don’t think, like many libertarians and Austrians do, that thinking that the state has a role to play in these arenas, that it’s a slippery slope to totalitarianism or socialism.
So I'm not super well versed in Austrian economics but I've always thought you could capture the aspects like family and friend and community as being the emergent phenomena of individuals choosing to make those groups and associations.
I.e it makes economic sense to make group associations if you consider the cost benefits of them across time even if they don't make sense at every moment in time. Though I can see the argument that using DNA as the basis for the analysis for families makes more sense than using the individual human.
Is this the line of thinking you have?
In terms of a state leading to socialism or totalitarianism: i can agree that above a certajn scale of humans, the incentives seem to tip us to totalitarianism eventually while at smaller scales the natural effects of emotions like shame can keep those in power in check more effectively. I always thought that was the argument for maximizing individual sovereignty to try to keep the scale of interactions as local as possible. If you want a larger state, what do you think the solution is then? I don't know of a historical example where large nations haven't eventually oscillated into some form of overreach.