Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3091

Solomon Correspondence – to, from and about Louis H. Solomon

1954-1962

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1467

Letter from The Science of Society, 11 Waverly Place East, New York City 3, to Louis H. Solomon, 5 East Tenth Street, New York 3, New York

March 24, 1952

 

 

Dear Mr. Solomon:

Enclosed I send four more of those cards that list twelve of the rationally discovered characteristics ex­hibited by the modern organic society — that powerful and majestic yet wholly voluntary organization of human energy and life that the modern era has so wonderfully though far from completely evolved despite full persis­tence of the ancient coercive and therefore essentially totalitarian political institutions.

On the back of these cards is an outline of the basic philosophy believed to be implicit in and common to every science that gives birth to a rational as against a merely empirical technology.

It has been my task to expose the distinctive rationale underlying the empirical practices through which the organic society functions and to predict the spontaneous free enter­prise technology of social advance that becomes obvious and inevitable as its fundamental rationale is disclosed.

Upon this latter point I am sending also herewith two copies in fictional form of my anticipations for New York City as to the next great societal advance by extension of the free enterprise technology into the public domain. I have considered including this story as a supplementary annex to my principal manuscript but feel that the second half of it could be very much strengthened and improved.

I cannot forbear happy anticipations with reference to your project of gaining the attention and enlisting the interest of Mr. Bernard Baruch in my social researches. Quite conceivably his reactions to your kind effort might include a gratitude to you that would be exceeded only by my own.

Sincerely,

 

I enclose also a print of the title page and two other pages of a partial prospectus. Two other pages will be supplied when prints have been secured.

________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2772

Pencil drafting on notepad paper for a letter to Bernard Baruch, followed by fragment of a penciled draft by Heath on different notepad paper of a letter of appreciation to Louis H. Solomon for making the contact. Reference to “ten copies in fictional form” has to do with The Romance of Realty.

No date

 

Some time ago during Mr. Churchill’s visit my legal counselor and friend Louis H. Solomon said to me at dinner in effect,

“Radical advances in any field of thought are rarely at first recognized by the professional practitioners, but Bernard Baruch has a mind that can grasp the significance of what you have done.” He went on warmly to state his resolve to __________ once and invite your attention, immediately your world-famed visitor should be gone, — but his schedule has been too congested day by day. May I not be bold to circumvent this “________?”

Will you lunch or dine with me on Wednesday or Friday of this present week at, say, the Savoy Plaza or other convenient place? I will call for you, if I may.

                                 Faithfully,

 

                                 Spencer Heath

 

P.S. My phone in New York is GRamercy7-9060. Mornings preferred.

__________________________________

Dear Mr. Baruch:

Some time ago a good friend of mine, Louis H. Solomon, a very busy and successful lawyer, told me, “Bernard Baruch has the mind that can grasp the significance of what you have done.” He went on warmly to say, “I will renew my acquaintance with Mr. Baruch and draw his attention your way.”

_______________________________

/Fragment of penciled draft by Heath of letter to Louis H. Solomon:/

…despite persistence of the ancient coercive and therefore essentially totalitarian political forms.

 

 It has been my work to expose the distinctive rationale underlying the empirical practices through which the organic society functions and to predict the spontaneous free enterprise technology of social advance that becomes obvious and available as its fundamental rationale is disclosed. Upon the latter point I am including ten copies in fictional form of my anticipations of societal advance in New York City by extension of the free enterprise technology into the public domain. I have considered including this as a supplementary annex to my principal manuscript but feel that the second half of it could be very much strengthened and improved.

 I can’t forbear happy anticipations with reference to your project of gaining the attention and enlisting the interest of Mr. Bernard Baruch in my social researches. Quite conceivably his reactions to your kind efforts might include a gratitude to you that would be exceeded only by my own.

Sincerely,

 

 I enclose also a print of the little page and two other pages of a partial prospectus. Two other pages will be supplied later when prints have been made.

 

____________________________________________________________­­____  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2376

Letter to Heath at 11 Waverly Place, New York City 3,

from Louis H. Solomon, 200 Fifth Avenue, New York City

July 9, 1954

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

 In going over your notes on the organization of real estate, it is important that you keep in mind the problem created by collective action, replacing, controlling and coercing the freedom of the individual.

 I am not convinced a controlled growth is necessarily, and in all instances, an advantage over a free growth.

 The Topsy you refer to may not have the polish, but she may have qualities of character that would be lost generally in a controlled growth.

 In my experiences with organizations, I have found that the collective action which strips the individual of free movement may have many compensations, but decline is inescapable. The savings in costs of production, distribution, etc. etc. are valuable in the early stages of the organization’s growth, but as time goes on the loss of the pressures upon the individual) imposed by the competitive struggle, result in decline. The first gains are achieved, but the end result is not good.

 Thus far, in my experience I have found no substitute for the struggles, the drive, the ambitions of the individual.

 I am reluctant to admit this serious limitation upon coercive collective action, but I do believe that the elimination or suppression of the freedom of the individual is an irreplaceable loss; that the concept of collective action which coerces and suppresses the freedom of the individual is a delightful contemplation as an ideal, but dangerous and damaging in practice.

Very truly yours,

LHS:gb              /s/ Louis H. Solomon

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1519

Letter to Mr. Louis H. Solomon,

200 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York

July 27, 1954

 

Dear Mr. Solomon:

I have just received your letter of July ninth and am certainly glad to hear something from you, that you have been going over my notes on the organization of Real Estate.

Let me say that I agree absolutely and 100 per cent with everything you say about the disadvantages and the “prob­lem created by collective action, controlling and coerc­ing the freedom of the individual.”

However, I am dismayed to find that you discover in any of my notes anything suggesting coercive collective action. Like you, I am far from convinced that controlled growth is in any instance an advantage over free growth.

Our present system of business administration by free contract may indeed be likened to Topsy in that it has been a spontaneous growth despite the many hindrances upon it by political controls. It does indeed possess qualities of character that could not exist under a government-planned economy of politically controlled growth. I am sure nothing better could happen to this Topsy than progressive emancipation from political control.

There is of course no substitute for struggle on the part of the individual in overcoming the obstacles which confront him. But the more these obstacles are broken down and freedom achieved, the more his energies are liberated towards constructive ends — the expression of his divinity by the building of his ideal conceptions and dreams into the materials of his outer world.

My own experience with corporate organization has not cost me any loss of liberty through collective action. On the contrary it has enabled what I have put into it to become far more productive for others and for me than if I had insisted on going it alone. I pool my property with others without being under any pressure to do so, I have administrative authority (whether I wish to exercise it or not) in exact proportion to my contribution, and I am free to withdraw at any time and give it my sole and immediate supervision. And if I demonstrate superior executive qualifications, my fellow stockholders are free to make use of my ambitions in the conduct of our collective enterprise.

The owner of an undivided interest is much like a silent partner. He can leave the administration to persons he has selected as being more capable than he, or he can step in with authority proportionate to his investment, or he can withdraw and go it alone. The organization itself, however collective it may be, does not in any way limit his freedom or the exercise of his ambitions.

Any coercion upon his freedom must come from some outside authority, notably the political organization through its prohibitions and control. These I am sure you would want to minimize. I am likewise sure that a community organization such as I have outlined could exercise vast powers of protection of its inhabitants against political domination and control, as well as enormous productivity of community services, and there­by create enormous incomes and values by collective action that is creative and productive and, as in all voluntary corporations, the very antithesis of coercion.

The corporate form of free cooperation is of recent evolution and growth and of course subject to many imperfections that it tends to outgrow as it approaches maturity.

I most heartily concur with your last paragraph that the elimination or suppression of the freedom of the individual is an irreplaceable loss, and that any collective action which coerces or suppresses this free­dom is dangerous and damaging in practice. It is to me an inspiring thought that God or Nature has provided for us such wonderful alternatives to coercive collective action and that these beautiful relationships can grow up amongst us like Topsy even before we learn to under­stand them.

Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1539

Memorandum to Louis Solomon

December 1954?

Some days ago I had, by appointment, a brief talk with Mr. Fillmore Hyde of the New York University Press. His letter of November 30th, attached, refers to this.

In our first discussion at lunch with Mr. Armsey it appeared that Mr. Hyde would gladly publish the the­oretical part of my Citadel, Market and Altar, with regard to the nature and processes of our voluntary society, but not without first eliminating my projection of the proprietary, and thereby contractual, free pro­cess of society into the field of common or community services. My theory of free contract as the transforma­tion of human energy into numerically measurable recipro­cal services appeared to be quite acceptable to him; but my description of the present operation of this principal, in the contractual distribution of sites and resources and of its potential of development into the full field of community administration, would not be acceptable for publication.

However, in our talk of a few days ago Mr. Hyde’s position, as he stated it to me, seemed substantially reversed. But before I could have this matter clarified his conversation shifted to the matter of a small cost — three hundred dollars — of editing and improving the manuscript preliminary to publication. I was not averse to this, but I thought the nature of this proposed preliminary work should first be well defined in a letter to me.

Mr. Hyde’s letter of November 30th leaves me still much in doubt. He seems to aim at an extensive reorgan­ization of my book as the first step “to procure a com­petent analysis of the problem to be solved,” without to me any clear indication as to what the problem is. He would entrust this “analysis” to his associate, Mr. Wilson Pollett, whose competence and experience as a critic, editor and reviewer of literary productions leaves nothing to be desired.

But Citadel, Market and Altar is not a literary production such as an essay, a novel or a biography and cannot be analyzed or properly appraised as such. It is the report of an experienced and not unsuccessful research engineer with background in legal theory (including prac­tice) and business experience and as a well read free lance in history and philosophy and especially in the methods and fundamentals of the natural sciences.

Uniquely, and in terms of the natural sciences, the book describes our voluntary (contractual) society, how it is organized and the special functions that it alone among all living things uniquely performs. As to liter­ary form, Mr. Follett’s editing might well be unsurpassed, once the subject-matter is understood. But the outline of his distinguished editing and publishing career makes no reference to any scientific or philosophic writings or reviews.

The variously related parts of Citadel, Market and Altar are organized with consistency and with a great deal of care. I should be grateful for any improvement of its literary form; but I do not feel that any need for major reconstruction, if it exists, should be at the outset or hastily assumed. Instead of literary or other reconstruction, based on perhaps off-hand peremp­tory judgment, the manuscript invites serious attention not to any artificial plan or device but to the exist­ence in our midst of a value-creating and profit-yield­ing non-coercive alternative to the evils that are inherent in political financing and administration and so widely deplored.

Please examine for me Mr. Hyde’s letter (with its enclosure attached) and advise me whether you think I should accept his proposition in that form or how other­wise from here on to proceed.

Spencer Heath

 

I will call you over the weekend before going to Boston for a week on Monday.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2405

Extract from letter to Louis H, Solomon,

5 East 10^th Street, New York City

June 21, 1955

 

It was very gracious of you indeed to perceive some of the breadth and depth of my contribution towards an objective science of society having a practical technology by which free enterprise under profit motivation can move into the field of community services with a proprietary administration in place of the political, with its usual accompaniments that we know all too well.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2785

Correspondence with Heath’s good friend, Louis H. Solomon, beginning with a 1959 Christmas card greeting from Solomon, followed by a penned draft on notepad paper and carbon of a letter to Solomon, eventuating in Heath’s own Christmas card text the following year, 1960, “The Divine Mandate.”

February 5, 1960

 

Greetings:

Out of the depth of his studies of the Torah, the prophet Isaiah pondered the mandate of Moses to the children of Israel, at the foot of Mount Sinai:

“thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Lev. XIX: 18)

Here, in this formula for human behavior, the prophet found the promise of universal peace. As he envisioned the ultimate triumph of human understanding, he spoke the prophecy of peace in these classic words:

“and they shall “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning forks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more.” (Isaiah II; 4)

It is a privilege to find shelter in the abiding faith of a slow, but inevitable, expanding horizon of understanding among men, and, in the holiday spirit, to utter a meek and humble prayer for an end of hate, for good will among men, and to send to a friend these greetings of the Holiday Season – a Merry, Merry Christmas and the bounties of a Happy, tranquil New Year.

 

___________­_____________________

/Draft/

Dear Mr. Solomon:

Again and again I ponder the loveliness of your greeting for the new year — “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” As a sentiment and among those who are intimate or dependent, its fruits are enjoyed consciously and are of great personal value and beauty. Only as it manifests itself in some outward form, when love becomes service, when the command is taken as a command to serve, then only is it the “formula for human behavior” — to serve others in the same manner one would be served. When this is done reciprocally in the modern system of exchange it ceases its dependence on love as a personal sentiment. It becomes impersonal, without discrimination as to religion or race and thereby universal, partaking of the Divine — motivated almost unknowingly by a God-given instinct in man.

 Moreover, through it keeping of accounts, it operates with the same impersonal rationality, the same balance and beauty that the natural sciences discover in all other created and evolving realms.

 See what a train of thought your “formula for human behavior” inspires. It is the central idea around which everything in that book of mine revolves, the practical large-scale application of which that Foundation of mine is designed to promote.  …

_________________________________

Mr. Louis H. Solomon

5 East 10th Street

New York 3, N. Y.

February 5, 1960

 

Dear Mr. Solomon:

Again and again I ponder the loveliness of your Greeting for the New Year, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Here is the divine command, the “formula” for human behavior. Or is it? To many, love is a senti­ment — not necessarily any kind of behavior at all. But a certain kind of behavior is implied. This is what we may call the objective side of love. And in a later ver­sion it is not a mere sentiment that is enjoined, beauti­ful as that may be. It is a specific mode of action — that ye do unto all others as ye would have them do unto you. Here is given to us the way of life, the passport to that kingdom of the Spirit on the earth wherein all things shall be added, even unto ever more abundant life.

 These fruits of the Spirit are not for those who only profess the sentiment of love, but for the doers of the word. And this doing must not be directed only to intimates or a chosen few; it must be towards all others, of whatever condition, color, race or creed.

 The kind of the action, the manner, the how of the love, is very specific. It must be done in the same man­ner as one would be done by. It must be done in a oneness of mind, a mutual accord of consent and desire on both sides, pursuant to a meeting of their minds. When the sentiment or spirit of love manifests itself in service in a general system of mutual exchange it is impersonal. It thereby transcends all narrow limitation, becomes universal, partaking of the nature of the Divine. In the democracy of the market in which all things are done “by consent of all and coercion of none,” it is a balanced, rational system determined by the equivalence of numbers, the balancing of accounts. It is thus a high creative technology among men, the same, in principle, as that practiced in the natural sciences for the transformation of the material world.

 The free enterprise system in which each is equal in his determination and jurisdiction over his own person and possessions — so far as it has developed and evolved — is the rational, self-consistent, concrete and universal practice of the Golden Command that we do unto all others in the same manner we would be done by. When the real owners — owners of the realty — in public communities merge their titles and act unitedly for the benefit of their inhabi­tants, then will the public business become truly a public service. The free enterprise principle then will be ex­tended to all business, public as well as private, without any cause or occasion for either taxation or its correla­tive — war.

Cordially,

 

Spencer Heath

SH/m

 

_______________________________

/Heath’s Christmas card for 1960:/

 

 

THE DIVINE MANDATE

Spencer Heath

Again, Isaiah pondered the loveliness of

Moses’ mandate to the children of Israel

      (Lev XIX:18):

 

       Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Here is the divine command, the formula for human behavior. To many, love is a sentiment — not necessarily any kind of behavior at all. But a certain kind of behavior is implied. This is what we may call the objective side of love. And in a later version it is not a mere sentiment that is enjoined, beautiful as that may be. It is a specific mode of action — that ye do unto all others as ye would have them do unto you. Here is given to us the way of life, the passport to that kingdom of the Spirit on the earth wherein all things shall be added, even unto ever more abundant life.

     These fruits of the Spirit are not for those who only profess the sentiment of love, but for the doers of the word. And this doing must be directed not only to intimates or a chosen few; it must be towards all men.

     The kind of action, the manner, the how of the love, is very specific. It must be done in the same manner as one would be done by. It must be done in a oneness of mind, a mutual accord of consent and desire on both sides. When this sentiment or spirit of love manifests itself in a general system of mutual exchange, it is impersonal. It thereby transcends all narrow limitations and becomes universal, partaking of the nature of the Divine. In the democracy of the market, in which all things are done “by consent of all and coercion of none,” it is a balanced, rational system determined by the equivalence of numbers, the balancing of accounts. It is thus a high creative technology among men, the same, in principle, as that practiced by the natural sciences for the transformation of our material world.

     The free enterprise system, in which each is equal in his self-determination and in his sole jurisdiction over his own person and possessions, is — so far as it has developed — the rational, self-consistent, concrete and universal practice of the Golden Command that we do unto all others in the same manner we would be done by. When the real owners — owners of the realty — in public communities merge their titles and act unitedly for the benefit of their inhabi­tants, then will the public business become truly a public service. The free enterprise principle then will be ex­tended to all business, public as well as private, without any cause or occasion for either taxation or its correla­tive — war.

/Note: MacCallum modified this text for inclusion in a projected publication provisionally titled Economics and the Spiritual Life of Free Men, by omitting the last two sentences, thinking it too much to introduce two radically new ideas in this short piece./

 

____________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3091

Carbon of letter from Heath at 462 West Hall, Harvey Mudd College,

to Louis H. Solomon, 6 East Tenth Street, New York City. Penned copy of the Jakobson letter referred to is in the Originals Envelope.

February 12, 1961

 

My great and good friend:

Since coming out here for some time under an en­gagement with the Harvey Mudd College I have remember­ed very much your great friendliness and spirit of help­fulness towards me in New York, and I have wished many times that I had more opportunity for your companionship and in some manner to return your many favors to me.

I was enough disconcerted by the letter of January 6th from Mr. Jakobson of 11 Waverly place to telephone at once to my grandson and tell him to ask and follow your instructions. Somewhat belatedly, I replied to Mr. Jakobson as per the copy here enclosed. I thank you for instructing him and hope there will be no need for you to give the matter any further attention.

I am Making some headway out here in getting the heads of some colleges, the very forward looking real es­tate editor of the Los Angeles Times and some of the huge land owning companies interested in the money-making as­pects of community administration for continuous income and profit (instead of occasional end uncertain capital gains) and in its enormous social potentialities towards a finally tax-free economy that it involves.  I hope you have found some time to look into the broad philosophy of this now rapidly growing alternative to political bureaucracy as set out in my C. M. & A.

Here’s hoping that you keep physically well, as I seem to do, and that all your interests and affairs are advancing happily — especially your wonderful project of an inter-faith religious center in connection with the Uni­versity of New York at Washington Square. I think this re­specting and reconciling of divers and diverse particular beliefs and outward observances and forms in a creative unity of spirit is a most hopeful sign on the near horizon of our present-day times. Your energetic aid and advance­ment of it I am sure must be bringing your heart joy.

With appreciation and all best wishes,

Cordially yours,

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3091

Letter to Heath at 462 West Hall, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, California, from Louis H. Solomon, 6 East Tenth Street, New York.

February 15, 1961

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

Your grandson was in to see me.  He discussed the prob­lem of your apartment with me.

There is nothing to worry about.

You are not making an undue use of your apartment. The use of your apartment by a relative or a friend on a visiting basis, during your absence, does not constitute a violation of your lease.

I have written Peter Jakobson a letter. He knows me, and knows that I will not tolerate imposition and injustice.

I am tied up with a lot of activity. The pressure upon me is constant, but involves no stress.

I hope that you continue to enjoy good health, and con­tinue to look upward to the stars.

One of my recent acquaintances is Ivan Firth. Another is Leonard Read. We have a common interest in the pursuit of the ideal of the progress of man in government and in civil life, consistent with the preservation of his dignity and his freedom.

I shall be looking forward to seeing you when you get back to New York.

Best wishes,

Sincerely,

/s/ Louis H. Solomon

 

__________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3091

Letter from Heath, 312 Halesworth Street, Santa Ana, California,

to Louis Solomon

August 24, 1961

 

Dear Mr. Solomon:

I have been out here, mostly at the Harvey Mudd College of Science & Engineering, ever since last fall. I have made many interesting contacts in busi­ness and academic circles in Southern California.

With it all, I have been wondering many times about you and your philanthropies and other public-spirited activities. I certainly hope they are progressing well, and that you have found your way to doing many things closer to your heart than mere rou­tine practice of the law. Doubtless that great interfaith building you were sponsoring for New York University is a fine and useful monument now, and I have been happy to note your doubtless very effective activities for the benefit of college youth towards an understanding of our marvelous free-enterprise system in its essentially spiritual character and potentialities.

I have often wondered how far you looked into that magnum opus of mine. I have often hoped you would discover its fundamentally non-political char­acter and how it is in actuality an outgrowth of the fundamental Judeo-Christian philosophy towards the practical (non-political) realization of a kingdom of heaven on the earth.

 Something else is also on my mind — that executed copy of a will made by me that I left with you thinking you would look it over and advise me concerning it. I am especially concerned about this because of my complete failure to obtain any Federal tax exemption for my Science of Society Foundation, and I am apprehensive lest the Federal Government and perhaps three state governments will make terrible inroads upon my estate. When you have the time and the mood, it will be a great pleasure for me to hear from you.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3091

Letter to Heath, c/o Mrs. Heath MacCallum, Waterford, Virginia,

from Louis H. Solomon, 6 East 10^th Street, New York City

October 2, 1962

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

     I received a letter from your grandson Spencer. He writes well, and has told me about your new book. I hope it will be published soon and will have wide distribu­tion.

     Moses apparently had wisdom beyond calculation. He saw the need to condition posterity for cooperative living.

     He uttered the mandate “Love Thy neighbor as Thy­self” and then created the priesthood, designating his brother Aaron as head of the church system, and separated the Levites from the community, and designated them as spiritual guides for posterity. He knew that man needed indoctrination in cooperative living.

     I am looking forward to seeing you in New York in the not too distant future, and before it gets too cold. I am sure that your usual resiliency will assert itself.

     Best wishes.

Sincerely,

                              /s/ Louis H. Solomon

LHS:mr

__________________________________________________________________________________