The most sparkling of all is his devastating analysis, dating from the 1960s, of the pretensions of the 'War Crimes Tribunal' established by Bertrand Russell to investigate fairly US conduct in the Vietnam War: "An investigation into the way the war has been conducted in Vietnam, into its crimes as distinct from its accidents, may be perfectly in order.... But whoever conducts such an investigation must not be a party to the conflict or violently prejudiced against either side. He must not be so precommitted to an antecedent conclusion that he weighs the evidence unfairly." Such wise words come to mind now when considering the efforts of the totalitarian Left to indict statesmen such as Henry Kissinger and Ariel Sharon. It is a shame Hook's long life did not extend even longer, so that we might still have the benefit of his powers of reason.

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.

I think this is a must read for every Christian.

Jaques Maritain, The Rights of Man and Natural Law. Originally Published in 1943.

CONTENTS
Uploaded by Stan Faryna, "Black and Right" (Praeger Trade 1997).

I. A SOCIETY OF HUMAN PERSONS
The Human Person; The Person and Society; The Common Good; Totalitarianism and Personalism; The Movement of Persons within Social Life; Four Characteristics of a Society of Free Men; A Vitally Christian Society; The Movement of Societies within Time; The Conquest of Freedom; The Common Task; The Internal Progress of Human Life Itself.

II. THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON
Political Humanism; Animality and Personality; Natural Law; Natural Law and Human Rights; Natural Law, Law of Nations, Positive Law; The Rights of the Human Person; The Rights of the Human Person; The Rights of the Civic Person; The Rights of the Working Person; Resume of the Rights Enumerated.

APPENDIX
International Declaration of the Rights of Man

INDEX OF NAMES

AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION
"This little book is an essay in political philosophy. Given a war wherein the destiny of civilization is at stake, and given the peace which also will have to be won after the war is won, it is very important that we have a proper and firmly established political philosophy. What I propose is intended to induce those who read these pages to clarify their ideas upon a fundamental question of political philosophy- the question of the relationship between the person and society, and the rights of the human person."