Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2331

Letter to E.C. Riegel from Mildred Loomis, School of Living, Lane’s End Homestead, Brookville, Ohio

December 5, 1952

 

 

 

Dear E.C.

 

Thanks for your letter. I’m honored to think that you’ll write when it is difficult for you. How you do what you do is a marvel!

 

     “Homogenizing heterogeneous groups” is an apt description. (I don’t mind work that is in the realm of ideas and people, but it’s the detail of folding, stamping, mailing etc. that gets me down.) It may be difficult to get people to think together, but unless we start it never will be attempted, and there are techniques now for dealing with closed mindedness that we have the advantage of, if others will submit to the experiment. It is worth trying if any others are willing to join in.

 

     Yes, Bob Clancy told me about your cracking the George School on the money question! Congratulations. Do you know Geza Smazk — he too has a private enterprise system. Why don’t you get together? And do you know Tolley Hartwick? He says government should administer money, but his “government” is strictly a service agency, and one pays for service used. He’s at Miles City, Montana.

 

So you and Spencer Heath are cronies? Two more dignified figures, would be hard to find, than you two. I met him long ago (1940) at George School. He wouldn’t remember it, but I used to get very lovely greetings from him. I see Freeman magazine has published his Fallacies of Progress & Poverty. (If he can get to Freeman magazine why can’t you and Firth?) I feel he has made errors in punching holes in George’s argument. The matter of turning land to the “government”, in my mind, does not mean the federal government. In fact, the whole problem of specific administration was not dealt with by George — and here I think Ralph Borsodi has made creative suggestion. The basic argument that land reflects community progress, and the land produces at different ratios (and thus gives some an advantage not held by others) seems to me real and valid even if Heath doesn’t think so. Some of the other “fallacies” he names are minor and do not affect the basic argument.

 

It’s wonderful that you continue active.

 

Best wishes for many more years,

 

/s/ Mildred