Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1135

Penciling in a notebook for letter to a person unidentified

1939?

Original -> 1130

 

 

 

Dear Sir:

 

Henry George, as a moralist, believed himself under command of God to destroy evil and drive it out of the world. To do this he thought it necessary to abolish private property in land. But as a political scientist, in order to pursue the freedom, properties and values of civilization, he proposed, “To ABOLISH ALL TAXATION, save that on land or land values.” And he urged that this abolition would, in its effects, abolish all taxation whatsoever, for then all costs of public services would, of necessity, be met out of their proceeds in ground rent. Thus would public services become available to the population no longer as special privileges but as land values received in exchange for the ground rents (that public services and the demand for them, under no taxation, would then create).

     His problem then was:  In whose hands should rest the sales of public services and collection of the rent paid for them in the manner of value given for value received? Should political persons, as “public servants,” grant and determine occupancies and seize rents under rules promulgated by them? Or, should proprietary persons, as “public owners,” carry out the sales of possession with services and security, upon terms set not by them but determined in the freedom and democracy of an open market.

     Henry George, the political scientist, pondered this problem and took his firm stand on the side of freedom and democracy by exchange and against the arbi­trary dominion of political administration and control over property and possession, the prime essentials to civilized life. He felt, even if he did not clearly see, that land users completely under the heel of the tax-taking politician as to their possession, even without other taxes, would be in worse plight than ever before. To him, all science taught the ways of creation, of the Creator, and thus the ways to create, where moralists would only destroy. The political scientist in him taught the conservation of men’s wealth and values by the abrogation of force, and the creation of public values by maintenance of voluntary exchange relationships between the users and possessors of land and those in whom its ownership and democratic administration publicly rests.

     The problem of today is: Who shall deliver us out of the hand of the politician? Henry George, facing it but dimly still, turned sharply, even if unconsciously, to the protection of the land owner serving without force and only by consent and exchange. Should we follow him?

     As one who would not strive to justify Henry George as a destroyer but who would honor him in his capacity as a creator, I should like to have the pleasure of your further acquaintance.

     I am planning to be at my New York address, King’s Crown Hotel, for the fortnight beginning August 28. Please advise me if you expect to be in or near New York at that time and if I may have the pleasure of entertaining you at our mutual convenience.

Sincerely,