Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1172

Draft of a letter probably related to Item 1161

Gentlemen:

Please let me give you my hearty endorsement of the first five paragraphs of your letter of December 31.

Henry George was an apostle of liberty in thought as well as in deed; — the unbound mind before the unbound man. He left us a sovereign prescription: Abolish all taxation save that on rent. This is his practical precept. How shall the world be persuaded to its acceptance?

We must clothe it in garments of living light pertinent to the visions and the conditions of today. To do otherwise is not to honor the man but to betray his trust.

As the babe must leave the womb to grow, the child the bosom to walk alone, so must the child of his dream of peace go forth in its own strength, no longer weakened by the hopes and fears of our cherishing arms. The earnest of our faith should be its fearlessness.

The basic principle of Henry George is the principle of exchange — that just as all sound business is the trading of service for service, of value for value, so must the public seizing of private property be discontinued and the rent that is paid for public services and advantages be applied to meet all the costs of supplying these.

To make practical application of this principle, Henry George proposed, To abolish all taxation save that on rent or land value. On this all Georgists agree. Their differences are not on what the principle is, nor on how Henry George would apply it, but in the kind of arguments they advance in justification of the principle.

This is because there are two opposite and contrary modes of approaching it. One is by feeling; the other is by thought. The one is moral, reformatory, retributive; the other is mental, scientific and evolutionary. One is reaction against the evil and ugliness that disintegrates the world; the other is pursuit of the beauty that unites the world and under which it moves forward to all things that are attained. Henry George reflected both of these views.

Now it happens that many of us (from our animal origin) have more feeling for transitory evil and pain than we have for the beauty that alone is the strength and permanence of life. They it is who, mistaking it for evil, would attack and destroy even the permanent in life. Thus beauty stifles in the dust of conflict and on a thousand crosses bleeds.

Many of us have become enamoured of arguments that are moralistic and retributive and therefore destructive — that contemplate the destruction of values and institutions, rather than their perfection and their fulfillment. In this we honor Henry George more as avenger than as liberator of men.

It is not in the fervor of moral indignation and destructive emotions, but in the light of knowledge and science that freedom is gained. The sound principle of Henry George should be maintained by the strongest and clearest of the arguments that he advanced; and if his better arguments can be extended to higher and firmer ground in support of his principle and thus bring it into higher and wider circles of acceptance and adherency, this will be enterprise of the highest loyalty to the great leader and one that his living spirit would most deeply commend.

There are grounds for hope that the great positive and creative proposal of Henry George may yet shine in the full light of its pure constructiveness. Those of us who have been searching for its full truth and beauty should try to learn from each other and let others learn from us, if they will.

But we must not fall into the error of condemning the School. Institutions, like men, must be appraised by what they accomplish and not by how much they fall short. We must be thankful that the School, at the very least, has brought some order and system and better organization to our cause. If it should give only a factual knowledge of what Henry George wrote, that alone is a valuable work upon which the largest numbers can unite and that we ought to encourage and applaud. Further and higher labors can have no better foundation than this. Men in large numbers must always have scriptures for their reliance and guide, and men in small numbers must ever widen the horizons circumscribed by the keepers of these bibles, that the vital spirit in them may be kept alive and grow.

For my part, I will refrain from any condemnation of the shortcomings of the School. But I will gladly join with whomever I may for discussion and development of the higher and more persuasive conceptions that support our great principle. And I will do this in the hope that what is thus done will be so well and effectively done that the School, by our example, may be inspired to extend its work, perhaps with our assistance, into higher and wider and less controversial fields. Let us at least establish ourselves as seekers and finders of Truth before we ask the School to “change its course and truly become a truth-seeking institution.”

With all sincerity and sympathy, I am

 

In truth yours,

 

Spencer Heath