This book is recommended to dispel two longstanding, pernicious myths. The 19th century sociologist and philosopher, Herbert Spencer, has long been the bete noir of progressives and socialists for supporting an allegedly anarchic laissez faire policy of government non-intervention and social Darwinism. The odd thing about today's Republicans, "conservatives" or "right-wingers" is the way they seem to join with the left in denouncing Spencer and laissez faire. For instance, many Republicans staunchly defend the Democrat party's largest government programs as if they were defending their own mother: Most Republican politicians today not only refrain from attempts to abolish the New Deal Social Security program but actually express eagerness to save and preserve this Democrat expansion of the welfare state, and in doing so often reject the alleged laissez faire policies of the 1930-40s conservatives who opposed the New Deal . The mystery grows deeper when we actually read the 1930-40s opponents of the New Deal such as Ogden Mills in his anti-New Deal manifesto, The Seventeen Million, and find that this Depression-era conservative also distanced himself from laissez faire in favor of some level of intervention (Mills 1937 p.40). Even Hayek, who apparently knows the true meaning of laissez faire (Hayek 1994 p.89-90), spends some ink denouncing certain "wooden" or "dogmatic" laissez faire attitudes (p.21,41).

What might, but should not, surprise modern readers is that Spencer supported government intervention because laissez faire does not reject all intervention (1981 p.21). Indeed, laissez faire requires government intervention. Laissez faire is not anarchy because we already have a word for anarchy called "anarchy." Laissez faire is the exact opposite of anarchy because laissez faire is the rule of law. The premise of laissez faire is to establish the framework in which individuals may freely allocate resources, a legal framework established by government intervention to secure defense, fair trial and property rights (guaranteed process). Thus, a laissez faire government does not order what contract you must sign but, once you freely contract with someone, the laissez faire government is pledged to intervene to enforce your contract rights if the other party defrauds or reneges. This is opposed to the central planning of socialism which prevents individuals' free allocation of resources and freedom to contract in order to engineer some pre-ordained social goal (guaranteed result). Social democrats oppose many market results which occur when laissez faire "only" guarantees process-- although it is not quite clear how government central planning is more democratic than the market result from the aggregate preferences of millions of free-choosing consumers.

The other longstanding myth, which even modern conservatives propagate, is the false caricature of Spencer as a callous, social Darwinist and classic, Victorian scrooge. First, it is important to understand Spencer's argument that certain imperfections and undesirable results hardly invalidate laissez faire, because "it is not a question of absolute evils; it is a question of relative evils-- whether the evils at present suffered are or are not less than the evils which would be suffered under another system" (8). Although Spencer opposed the socialism of many "progressives," it is clear that Spencer was a progressive who desired the amelioration of the common man and working poor-- improvements most likely gained by laissez faire, according to Spencer. In this 1891 book, Spencer took pains to avoid any misunderstanding on this crucial point, although his ideological enemies and history seemed happy to ignore his efforts: "Let me again repudiate any erroneous inference. Any one who supposes that the foregoing argument implies contentment with things as they are, makes a profound mistake. ... My opposition to socialism results from the belief that it would stop the progress to such a higher state and bring back a lower state. ... It is not then, chiefly in the interests of the employing classes that socialism is to be resisted, but much more in the interests of the employed classes" (p.29-32). Thus, the other benefit of this book is to indicate the humane compassion of this poor, traduced, laissez faire advocate.

This is the advantage of primary sources; to read not what others wrote about Spencer's thoughts and writing but to read what the man actually wrote. A greater effort to verify claims by primary sources would redress a legion of falsehoods. This book provides not just the original writings of Spencer but those of numerous, able thinkers of the Victorian era.

An excellent guide to all aspects of precepting medical students in the office. Particularly good is the chapter on advising medical students. Highly recommended for physicians who precept medical students.

Problems of Market Liberalism first appeared as the summer 1998 issue of the journal Social Philosophy and Policy. It is good that such valuable issues are made available to the public, for the quality of this journal over its comparatively short life span has been high, and the present volume is certainly no exception.

Overall, the volume stands on the cutting edge in its combination of academically responsible yet generally down-to-earth analyses. There's plenty to make one think, and plenty to equip the aspiring libertarian with intellectual weapons of a badly needed kind. By all means, read it. It won't be a quick read--it's high-density material--but it will repay the effort.

I would recommend "What is Literature?" to anyone interested in literature, philosophy, and existentialism. Sartre explores why we read, why writers write, and the situation of the writer after WWII. Also included are several essays, one on Les Temps Modernes, and another on African Disporia literature. Particularly interesting is how Sartre traces the situation of the writer for the last four hundred years and his theories of writing as "praxis".

Kaspar Hauser's life was somewhat different from that of the typical feral child (there's an oxymoron for you). Unlike, say, Victor of Aveyron, Kaspar was deliberately imprisoned for approximately twelve years, beginning from the time he was about 4. At about age 16, Kaspar was suddenly and inexplicably released and set loose to wander the streets of Nuremburg. Anselm Von Ritter Feuerbach took the boy in and treated him kindly even as he observed him closely, keeping a notebook on Kaspar. This notebook is here printed in English for the first time, translated by Jeffrey Masson, who gives a history of Kaspar's life after his release as well. At the age of 19, two men tried to murder Kaspar; a couple of years later, they tried again, stabbing him several times. He died three days later. Why was this done? Apparently the rapid progress Kaspar had made in learning to both speak and write German quite fluently and articulately, and especially the memories that were beginning to come to the surface, posed quite a threat to someone. Masson puts forward for an English speaking audience a theory commonly found in Hauserian scholarship: Kaspar was the crown prince of a small nation, switched at birth at the instigation of one Countess Louisa in favour of her brat. Naturally, both the reputations and positions of quite a few people depended on Kaspar's silence. Masson puts forward many facts to support this theory; it would be well-nigh impossible to doubt that this theory is correct, even though it sounds like one of Grimm's less cosy fairy tales. Intriguing though all this is, however, the fact of Kaspar's confinement looms over the book, making it impossible to get any real enjoyment out of reading it. The description of Kaspar's life in a tiny dungeon is disgusting and disturbing. If you are at all inclined to be emotional, or if your life is not happy right now, I'm not sure you will want to read this book--it can be very upsetting to think about (perhaps that's why it's out of print). But maybe not. On the other hand, those interested in psychology should definitely read this book whether they like it or not--it'll be useful. I would recommend this book very heartily to all if I myself had not been quite so upset by reading it; forget my comments and judge it for yourself.

Masson has gone back to original source material (and even discovered some documents long thought lost) to re-examine the story of Kaspar Hauser. With his background in psychology, he was able to analyze the story like no previous writer had, and come to some surprising revelations, not the least of which Kaspar may well have been a member of German royalty, and was quite likely imprisoned and killed for just that reason. Though I gave the book five stars, I do have some minor complaints: 1) Masson is a believer in Recovered Memory Syndrome, 2) he doesn't consider any physiological causes for Hauser's seeming lack of education and his subsequent steep learning curve (Charles Fort, oddly enough, is the only one to present convincing evidence that a bump on the head could have caused temporary amnesia, which then gradually receded as time went on), 3) he doesn't explain why Hauser was released from his imprisonment, especially after so many years, 4) Though he had asked a few pediatricians about the effects of long-term nutritional deficiences (Hauser supposedly subsisted on just bread and water), it is distressing that none of them could tell Masson anything specific (Just for the record, scurvy from Vitamin C deficiency, marasmus and hypoalbuminemic-type PEM (kwashiorkor) from too little protein and other nutrients, and rickets from Vitamin D deficiency, just to name some examples). Still, this book is worth it just for the Introduction alone, and is likely to remain the definitive work on this mysterious child.

Some books are meant to be page turners. When you buy one of those, you put an extra log on the fire, make some hot chocolate, and read till you fall asleep.

That plan of attack will not work with LOST PRINCE. You may as well try to read the complete works of Sigmund Freud in one sitting. Yet LOST PRINCE is as brilliant as it is disturbing. You may stop reading at the end of a chapter, but you will not stop thinking about this book.

The German language has turned Kaspar Hauser into a cliche of sorts. Someone who's vexing and exasperating, yet basically innocent and naive, is called a "Kaspar". German majors at most universities learn only the roughest information about him, generally in terms of his being an interesting case study for how people turn out when they are denied human contact in their formative years.

But Kaspar's story is so much more than that. It is child abuse, political intrigue, good vs. evil, and a murder mystery all rolled into one. When you finish this book, you still cannot tell the bad guys from the good. All you know is that Kaspar Hauser was treated like no human should ever have been treated, and that nothing he could have done would ever justify the inhumanity of the persons who placed him in that dark and cruel prison.

It is therefore a little eerie to realize that all this took place 101 years before Hitler, in a city called Nuremberg.

Tragi-comedy (a lot of comedy) which is better read, for once, than seen. A master of the genre, a recommended text.

Paul Rudnick, author of the In & Out movie, wrote this great play a while ago, yet it is still powerful today. Jeffrey has been made into a movie (and seeing Patrick Stewert as a homosexual has got to be experienced!), and this is the script. I am going to be putting on this play later this year. Kudos to Paul!!

In some ways, this is my favourite Archer novel -- the plot and the characters are wonderful.

The book suffers from his lack of experience (it was his first published novel). The story is slow to get started (considering the length of the novel) and the ending is more contrived than the endings of his later books. Occasionally, the dialogue is stilted, and there are viewpoint shifts that happen without notice.

However, Archer is a great storyteller, and this story just keeps moving. Essentially, this is a revenge tale, in which four men swindled by a master con-artist decide to get back exactly what he stole from them. They embark on a series of scams in order to extract the money from the miscreant. The scams are just barely believable, and one of the strengths of the book is the way that the author drags you in and gets you to believe that these exotic plots can work.

This is an excellent short novel, with lots of light suspense and much to admire. It is well worth the time it takes to read.

Having read a wide variety of authors, I can say that I truly enjoy Archer's entertaining writing, with his abundant humorous and/or dramatic turns. This book is no exception. An American businessman has bilked four different men with an intricate scheme to the tune of $1,000,000. But one of the men is determined to get his money back.

Gathering the victims together, the four men develop individually elaborate plans to recoup their losses from the infamous Mr. Harvey. Each plan is exceptionally creative, daring, and very entertaining as they get all of their money back, not a penny more, not a penny less.

Archer's style creates a very reader-friendly text, with good pace. And the ending is outlandishly funny. A great read.

Couldn't wait to read this each day and was sorry when I finished it because I didn't have the pleasure of anticipation the next day. Jeffrey Archer has woven a thoroughly enjoyable tale of a scoundral - Harvey - who cheats anyone anyway he can. Through an innocent third party, he manages to dupe four men out of a total of $1,000,000. One of these, a university professor, determines to follow his father's motto: don't get angry, get even. The professor puts together a dossier on Harvey and contacts the three other men and convinces them to come up with a way to get the money they lost back. (They had all invested in north sea oil shares that turned out to be worthless.) The schemes they develop and carry out are not only brilliant, but also very humorous reading. The delightful twist at the end had me laughing all through the last chapter. This book is skillfully written and sure to be enjoyed by Archer fans. Anyone who has not read his books, would surely become a fan after reading "Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less".

I bought this book looking for a lush picture book of inspiring photos of mediterranean homes. It is not. Although the photography is nice, it is primarily of colourful buildings abroad.

Wonderful book and great writing. Beautiful images of architecture, color and life. I highly reccomend. A must have for anyone who has traveled there or for anyone who dreams of doing so. Jeffrey Becom's photographs are a feast for the eyes and his tales are engrossing. One must also look at his other book Maya Color - stunning as well!

This book is about Architecture, Color, and how we see the world. It's not about how to be a tourist in the Mediterranean. Unless, of course, you would like to be a tourist who really "sees" what is in front of your eyes when you walk down that picturesque village street. Jeffrey Becom has a killer eye. His camera isolates a detail from our normal panoramic vision of a building or a street scene. When we contemplate this detail our sense of beauty, aesthetic organization, and how the world works is expanded. His capability to see these details while wandering the countries bordering the Mediterranean allows us normal humans a greater appreciation of the sensibilities of work-a-day Mediterannean peoples. The contemplation of Jeffrey Becom's work also inevitably causes us to look at our own world differently. I see things now when I walk down the street that I didn't see before I looked at Becom's work.

Alpha Strike Vietnam was a great collection of stories from pilots who were living the Vietnam War from 1964-1975. The book is fairly technical but if you use the attached definitions of acrynyms and pilots vernacular it makes it a bit easier.

You certainly have a different idea of the Vietnam War after reading the book no matter what ideology you carried before you read the book. Understanding the feelings, thoughts and actions of people who experienced the war first hand gives you insight to their frustrations regarding a limited war managed by politicians. You also get a feel for why the politicians and military brass so valued the statistics collected from the War.

Alpha Strike Vietnam is a great technical book about pilots living in combat. The stories are frank flashbacks of pilots while flying and dying in combat or in prison. The verbage is military technical and can get burdensome at times. However, as you read through the book you become accustomed to the vernacular and eventually fell comfortable with it. The book gives you a different perspective on the Vietnam War from guys who did not have the luxury of caring about the politics of the war. They were simply there to fulfill their duty or get their time in. It is also apparent that given an all out green to wage full scale war on the North Vietnamese, the war would have been shorter and the US would have subdued the NVA and Kong. That of couse is if China and Russia would have let that happen or would they have escalated into full scale global war. Still, you can feel the frustrations of the limitations on the war apparatus from both the military and executive sides as they both navigate the hottest parts of the war from 64 to 75. Very interesting and informative.

The reviewer below misses the point. This book was the first anthology of Asian American writers to come out of the period of the founding of Ethnic Studies. It focuses soley on works by Japanese, Chinese and Pilipino Americans and features the usual suspects, Frank Chin, Carlos Bulosan, etc. It does not inlcude works by Vietnamese or Thai Americans because there was next to no immigration or even refugees from those countries immigrating pre 1965. Get your facts straight and review the text in its historical context and you will find that this text is a valuable source to capture the many dilemmas that Asian American's faced in forging an identity of their own.

You guys should make an effort to buy this book (if it's still around). In it, the editors expose "Asian American" authors who thought it best to represent Asian Americans by making them love "white America" in spite of their own Asian culture! For instance, Pardee Lowe has an aversion toward the tong his father is in; and in order to keep him from these "heathen chinese" he helps convert his father into Christianity (this nation's prevalent religion). You will also learn how subtle racist figures like Charlie Chan represent what whites perceive as Asianness. Bear in mind, the editors are not segregating the term Asian to mean just Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino. Rather, they are merely using Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino literature to convey (this is a part of their argument) that these different subgroups (and then some) within Asia America were not (and are not) assimilated (they did not hate their own culture to show their patriotism toward America). They open their book with "Asian Americans are not one people but several - Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, and Filipino Americans." They are not saying "Asian Americans are not one people but only three..." And, yes, I've met Asian Americans who are just as biased as white people, but this isn't the case that the editors are making (nor are they this way). Really, all they are doing is challenging the subtle racist stereotypical view whites have of Asians (which is a prevalent view). Some of you may not know what a stereotype of an Asian person is! Why not find out how REAL Asians are by reading this masterpiece.

You guys should make an effort to buy this book (if it's still around). In it, the editors expose "Asian American" authors who thought it best to represent Asian Americans by making them love "white America" in spite of their own Asian culture! For instance, Pardee Lowe has an aversion toward the tong his father is in; and in order to keep him from these "heathen Chinese" he helps convert his father into Christianity (this nation's prevalent religion). You will also learn how subtle racist figures like Charlie Chan represent what whites perceive as Asianness. Bear in mind, the editors are not segregating the term Asian to mean just Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino. Rather, they are merely using Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino literature to convey (this is a part of their argument) that these different subgroups (and then some) within Asia America were not (and are not) assimilated (they did not hate their own culture to show their patriotism toward America). They open their book with "Asian Americans are not one people but several - Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, and Filipino Americans." They are not saying "Asian Americans are not one people but only three..." And, yes, I've met Asian Americans who are just as biased as white people, but this isn't the case that the editors are making (nor are they this way). Really, all they are doing is challenging the subtle racist stereotypical view whites have of Asians (which is a prevalent view). Some of you may not know what a stereotype of an Asian person is! Why not find out how REAL Asians are by reading this masterpiece.