Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1519

Carbon of letter from Heath to 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,