Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1325

Carbon of a letter to E.S. Griffith, Department of Legislative Reference, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

January 15, 1941

Dear Dr. Griffith:

I want to thank you for the opportunity of an interesting discussion with you and for your reference to Vol. II, Chapter X and Appendices of your own work on The Modern Development of City Government. I am quite eager to look into this and am determined to do so within the next few days.

     Meantime, I am enclosing, herewith, for your consideration a mimeographed copy of my condensed outline of “The Energy Concept of Population.” I think you will notice that this proposed method of approach in making analyses of social institutions opens up the possibility, on the surface at least, of resolving social institutions by the same inductive and quantitative methods that have been successful in the natural fields. I also feel that your attention cannot fail to be arrested by the almost abrupt manner in which the qualitative distinction emerges and appears as soon as we regard population as a stream of energy and take into account the character of the stream as regards the varying numbers and inversely varying potentials or energy endowments in the units of which it is composed.

     I think you will observe that this energy concept, as a method of social analysis, has been employed by me in my explanation of Private Property in Land from the functional point of view. I think you will find this functional approach worthy of your thoughtful consideration. Among its other advantages, this mode of approach seems to afford a rationale for the phenomenon of ground rent without the pathological implications that arose out of the static conceptions of Spencer and Mill. When we think of proprietorship (of whatever kind of property) as a functional relationship, we can see that this must take the form of conveying services — not only the services that have been incorporated in the property, but also the services of merchandising it through the free contractual process of agreement and exchange which gives to all parties concerned a social or democratic and peaceable use or distribution of the property concerned as contrasted with a political or other arbitrary process of distribution. When it comes to the sites and resources and the other common properties of a community, we find the proprietary interest that owns the land and resources actually now distribute these by the democratic process of contract and the market. We, therefore, find them also in position to give administrative and supervisory services other than and beyond those of mere distribution. Here lies the key to a social and democratic (non-coercive) administration of public community business and affairs. The virtue of this resides in the fact of all the relations between all the parties being relations of contract and consent and not involving compulsion or coercion by political or other arbitrary authority however constituted or set up. It is also interesting to observe that an extension of its administrative functions by the proprietary authority can take the form profitably only of services to the community from which its income is contractually derived and, therefore, there need be no conflict with the existing political authority.

     It is to me an intellectual privilege to call the attention of an interest and mentality like yours to the possible emergence of proprietary administration over public and community business and affairs as the long-sought solution of the dilemma between anarchy and tyranny in political affairs.

Very truly yours,