Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2505

Two letters from Gilbert M. Tucker, one as president of the Association for Economic Justice, 128 State Street, Albany, New York, May 20, 1953, and the other as president of the Economic Education League, same address, October 13, 1953.

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

Thanks for the material you sent me. I do not mean to be discourteous but I simply cannot make head nor tail out of it. I do not understand it but per­haps I am dumb. It seems to me that there is a great deal of inconsistency in your position and frankly I just don’t know what you are proposing. I have marked one or two things in your recent circular which are very obscure to me and I cannot reconcile your apparent admiration for George with what I take to be, although I am not sure of it, opposition to his teaching.

 I am very sorry to see you attacking George and his philosophy and don’t quite understand your motive.

Cordially yours,

 

(signed) Gilbert M. Tucker

President

GMT/K.

_____________________________________________________________

 

My dear Mr. Heath:                         October 13, 1953

When you very kindly sent me a copy of your “Progress & Poverty Reviewed” I wrote you thanking you for it, and at the same time expressing very frankly my opinion of it. I sent my letter to the only address which I had, your old address in Maryland but it came back twice undelivered. I am therefore writing you again a somewhat belated thank-you, but this is a qualified thank-you because I find very little in your booklet to commend.

 My principal criticism of your booklet is the same which I have expressed of your argument when we have discussed these things personally. I cannot make head or tail out of your position and do not understand the case which you offer. It also seems to me that there is a good deal of misrepresentation of what George says. For instance, it seems to me that page 9 is not at all a fair interpretation of his case. It is hardly worthwhile to point out the particular instances because frankly it seems to me that you are not seeking to represent George fairly but to distort much of what he says, by quotations out of context and similar devices, to serve your purpose. I think you were notably unfair in representing George as disregard­ing the value of distributed services, or of services other than physical.

 Like most others who have given real study to George I am perfectly aware that he made a few slips. I don’t go with him on his theory of interest and I certainly do not accept his ideas on public ownership of utilities as expressed in Social Problems. However, for the latter there is a very good justification in his case since he wrote before there was any real thought of regulation of the utilities. George also used some unfortunate expressions, such as making land common property, and his denunciation of the landowner. It seems to me that at times he failed to realize that the landowner is just as much the victim of our fallacious system as the rest of us.

 Notwithstanding these slight reservations which I have in calling myself a Georgist I think that the broad principles of his general argument are absolutely incontrovertible and I cannot see how anyone who has given it the study which you have can hold the position which you do.

 I think most of the fallacies which you point out in the latter half of your pamphlet are far less fallacious than your intended destruction of them and I think a good deal of your argument is mere quibbling. It is hardly worthwhile to go through these things point by point because from past experience I think there is little use in discussing these things with you for apparently your mind is closed.

 As for your idea of the “contractual” method of holding land I either fail to understand what you mean or it is utter nonsense.

 Just what prompts you to publish this pamphlet I cannot understand. I should like to give you full credit for absolute sincerity and if I do this, I cannot give you credit for logical reasoning or for very keen thinking. I cannot imagine the publication of this pamphlet will accomplish any good whatever and it seems to be utterly at variance with the position that you often have taken of approving the major prin­ciples of George. I had always thought of you as one who had “seen the cat” but it seems to me that you certainly have gone off the deep end. I wonder if you have ever read Browning’s poem, The Lost Leader? It makes me think of you. I regret very much the position you have taken.

 

Very sincerely,

(signed) Gilbert M. Tucker

                                     President

 

gmt/k