Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3020

Initial proposal by F.A. (“Baldy”) Harper for what would become the Institute for Humane Studies, now at George Mason University. At this time, Baldy had not disclosed his plan to Leonard Read, Director of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) where Baldy was a staff member. Baldy’s reason for deciding to leave FEE and form an institute was that Read (for unknown reasons but possibly lest he be branded with “anarchy” and thereby alienate some of his major contributors) was not willing to go beyond what was already well known about the free market — to explore and encourage the growing edge for break-throughs in understanding human social organization. Heath, Baldy’s friend and confidant, edited this document and offered his hundred-acre property, Roadsend Gardens at Elkridge, Maryland as a home for the Institute. Hosted by Heath and Spencer MacCallum, Baldy and his family visited for a weekend and looked over the property, but Baldy eventually decided the intellectual climate on the West Coast might be more hospitable to the kinds of thinking the Institute would engage in. Following this initial, unedited proposal is the same draft as edited by Heath, set in a contrasting typeface to avoid confusion between the two. See the original with Heath’s pencil markings in the Originals Envelope.

February 14, 1956

 

 

Preliminary

Not for Publication

Personal for Mr. Spencer Heath

February 14, 1956

 

 

AN INSTITUTE FOR THE SCIENCE OF FREEDOM

 A PROPOSAL FOR RESEARCH AND LEARNING

 

An informal institute to further the science of society is here proposed.

The basic purpose of the institute will be research. But it is also proposed to offer a few stu­dents the chance for help in their study of the problems of freedom, to operate in the spirit of an informal graduate school to whatever extent means are forthcoming to make it possible for worthy students to do so.

The budget and other details of the proposal will be given in the latter part of this statement. First will be given, however, an explanation of why this type of insti­tute is needed.

The World We Live In

Presumably we live in an ordered universe where “chance” is only our way of referring to something we do not yet under­stand. Were this not so, scientific discoveries would have been impossible. But since there is repetition of orderly occurrences, the underlying laws which they reflect can be revealed by scientific research. Knowledge of these laws, in one form or another, is what makes it possible for us to live in greater harmony with our environment — that together with harmony of spirit.

Humans are part of this ordered universe too, along with other forms of life and inorganic matter. So discovery of the principles of human affairs will allow mankind to live in greater harmony with all other aspects of our environment. Things of the spirit, too, extend this harmony beyond the reaches of reasoned understanding.

Assuming an ordered universe, disorder and discord must be reflections of, and the consequence of, ignorance and contra-spirit. This condition can never be corrected by processes of force. Any improvement must come from knowledge and things of the spirit, because their lack is the cause of disorder and discord.

                    Progress in Science

Historically, mankind first sought satisfaction for his basic wants of food and shelter. Throughout most of his­tory this has largely absorbed his time and energy. Whatever gains he made in productive techniques was equaled by his procreative proclivities, bringing with it the need for more and more food and shelter.

So mankind has populated the earth, crowding more and more persons into the relatively few spots well adapted to human habitation. This crowding, in turn, has brought new problems — the problems of society. These are the problems which arise from living in close proximity to one another and of deciding who shall have this or that among all those things desired beyond their availability. This, in short, is the problem of freedom.

By some strange paradox, as mankind has solved more and more of the problems of material productiveness, it has intensified rather than diminished the problems of society. As Dr. Warren Weaver once expressed it, “Our morals must catch up with our machinery.” For whereas material welfare has increased, so has covetousness and predation. Why? Is it because a highly organized “assembly line life” has been part of the process? Is it because the leisure has given persons not only more time for themselves, but also more time to mind the affairs of others – seemingly the more enticing of the two? Whatever the cause, an increasing loss of freedom threatens the civilization of which we are a part, unless a science of society and a constructive spiritual guidance can resolve the problems of discord and disorder.

That is why it becomes so important to try to probe into the nature of society far deeper than has ever before been done, in an attempt to uncover basic principles in this exceedingly complex society where we live.

An Approach to this Science

In searching for the basic laws of society, it seems wise to follow the path of success elsewhere.

     The path of success in the natural sciences may be assumed to apply in certain respects to the social sciences as well. By this I do not mean that the intricate details of methodology apply, necessarily. But the type of person and the environmental conditions probably do apply. This is where the history of science and the biographies of outstanding natural scientists prove helpful.

     Rather than to attempt to give details here, reference is made to “Science and the Planned State” by Professor John Baker, “Re­flections of a Physicist” by Professor P.W. Bridgeman, and “The Path of Science” by C.E. Kenneth Mees.

 

The nearer one gets to what is commonly called pure re­search, or the search for fundamental discovery, the less wide­spread is the market for it. No queue of buyers waits at the counter for fundamental research, anxious to buy these “silly abstractions.” In fact, the search may uncover nothing, which certainly attracts no buyers.

The market for this type of research is indeed a strange one. The only sense in which there is a market at all is that someone of economic means may be willing to finance its explorations. It is like one person staking another to prospect for gold which, if found, will go to benefit mankind in general rather than either of them alone.

Such work, then, has an exceedingly thin market. Historically it has been all but non-existent. Sometimes it was done in dusty attics, using up one’s meager savings in the endeavor.

What the buyer of this type of work is buying is the ex­ploration of the unknown by someone in whom he has confidence. One is buying integrity, ability, and devotion to the task of trying to produce something as yet unknown.

    Team Work and Individual Work

Dr. Warren Weaver once said,

“However, it cannot be assumed that this (the research teams) will be the exclusive pattern for future scientific work, for the atmosphere of complete freedom is essential to science. There will always, and properly, remain those scientists for whom intellectual freedom is necessarily a private affair. Such men must, and should, work alone. Certain deep and imaginative achievements are probably won only in such a way.”[1]

This atmosphere of freedom is probably required above all for those qualified to study the problems of freedom. They sense its absence acutely. And yet persons possessed of this sort of ability which Weaver is describing might well col­laborate in their research. Properly designed, some sort of joint endeavor might be worked out that would serve as a positive catalyst instead of as a negative force of distraction and frustration, as often happens in organizational processes. . The individual status of freedom might be maintained, while at the same time creating the ideal environment for cooperation — necessarily a voluntary affair. (Ref.: Unpublished manuscript on the nature of cooperation in an organization).

One of the major advantages of a joint endeavor and cooperation would be in teaching. For most of us, I’m sure, most of our worthwhile teaching came from the inspiration of one or two great teachers. If it were possible to attract to one spot two or more great teachers of the science of society, where students of outstanding ability could come for study, the fruits might be amazing.

The Proposal

The foregoing analysis leads to the following proposal: In furtherance of the objective of freedom, it is proposed to establish an informal institute of research and teaching in the science of society. It is to be the counterpart of a grad­uate school. But in not granting degrees — at least not ini­tially — it can avoid all the trappings required of the “licensing” process of formal graduate work. Those who will be investing their time will be doing so as students bent on the hope of learning something for the benefit of themselves and mankind.

The institute at its beginning will be at a minimum of size, or one person. No larger size is required to start such an endeavor. It can then grow as desired by the participants — the financial supporters, the staff, and the students.

Initial Personnel

 

The qualifications of the person who is to be the initial member are given on the appended biographical sheet.

 

Special attention is called to certain published works which reflect the intent, scope, and intended direction of the institute.

Location

 

At the start, the work of the institute would be done in the residence of the initial staff member, to save costs of unnecessary office space. Expansion or relocation would be considered as future developments warranted.

 

The most desirable location, eventually, involves several types of consideration. Westchester County is expensive from the standpoint of living costs. Yet any other location would have to take into account such things as library facilities, accessibility for visiting personnel, and convenience to re­search materials.

 

Suggestions for relocation would be invited, constantly. Perhaps a juxtaposition to some college or university would be advantageous. This would have many advantages, including the possibility that someday the institute might grow in esteem sufficiently to become some sort of affiliate to such a college or university without having to surrender its basic purpose and function; this would be the ideal, because of its possibilities as an outlet through the minds and hearts of young people — the teachers and formers of the coming generation. No higher destiny for an institute of freedom could be envisaged.

 Growth and Staff Additions

 

Additions to the personnel of the institute would be con­tingent on the availability of financial means. For any addi­tions with the intent of permanency, financial adequacy would include an addition to the reserve fund at the level of the accumulation then attained and prevailing.

 

As supporters were sufficiently impressed with the prospective fruits of the endeavor to contribute additional funds, others could be added by invitation. For instance, it is likely that for an additional $4,000 there could be attracted a top quality student. And as further funds were made available, other students and additional staff could be added.

 

Financial support might be provided to the Institute direct, for additions of its own selection. Or the funds might be provided direct to the person himself, as direct grant in the sense of a fellowship or staff addition. In some instances, students or staff might even add themselves, so to speak, from funds of their own or acquired by themselves.

 

Qualifications of additions to the personnel are of ex­treme importance, because no such endeavor can rise above the abilities of those who comprise it. It seems helpful in this connection to review the work of a few outstanding persons who have made notable contributions to the science of society and of freedom in the past, for they offer a model of its aim. Among those I would mention, whose attainments have been proved by the seasoning process of time, are Lord Acton, Jacob Burkhardt, Thomas Davidson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Everett Dean Martin, and Henry David Thoreau. The contributions of any one of these seems priceless to us now. What, if anything, did they have in common that could guide us in the selection of students and staff?

 

It was not their nationality, not their religious-cultural background. Nothing of that sort. These were highly varied.

 

It was not a similarity of education.

 

It was not a particular type of environmental setting, alike for all.

 

No, the things in common that these great contributors of thought on liberty seemed to have were these:

1. Rare perceptive intelligence, and a type of concern for mankind.
2. A scholarly, scientific type of mind, devoted to the search for truth per se. There was an ever-readiness to review new evidence that might uproot one’s own hypothesis, not a searching for proof of one’s beginning assumption.

 

3. A rejection of personal glory or contemporary popular­ity per se. Instead, the pursuit of truth was the objective. Some of the greatest works among these persons were, in fact, published posthumously from manuscripts prepared quietly.

 

4. In order to attain their best work, each seemed to have sought the environment which, for him, proved most inspiring and fruitful. Bastiat, for instance, seemed to prefer seclusion, whereas Lord Acton and Burckhardt seemed to prefer University posts. Davidson chose the classrooms of a wandering scholar. But in every instance an environment of freedom was necessary for them to pursue fruitful work as independent, self-responsible scholars. The manner in which environment affects creative work has been described effectively by William Easton , in Mechanical Engineering, August, 1946; by Leonard Carmichael, in The Scientific Monthly, April, 1954; and by John K. Williams’ books.

 

5. The teaching of these persons also took varied forms. Note, for instance, the contrasts between Bastiat, Davidson, and Acton in this respect. Bastiat’s teaching was largely through correspondence and published manuscripts; Davidson’s was mostly in itinerant classrooms; Lord Action’s was in both formal and informal classrooms. Some were tutors.

 

The characteristics of great social scientists such as these have been portrayed clearly by Burckhardt in the chapter of his book “Force and Freedom”, about the great men of history,

     In the Spirit of Freedom

 

The Institute described here is intended to be wholly con­sistent with the underlying assumptions of human liberty, thereby striving to attain its end by means entirely consistent with liberty.

 

The design of the Institute assumes, for instance, that no organization can possibly attain more than the sum total of its individual personal parts in voluntary cooperation; that any formalized organizational structure is likely to curb the productive spirit of individuals, especially in the area of research ex­plorations; that its influence is likely to be negative in terms of potential. The menial service aspects characteristic of organizational operations can, to the extent needed, be obtained by hire at a reasonable price.

 

The purpose of the institute is to provide opportunity for a few promising scholars of liberty to pursue independent, uncensored exploratory work, and to offer teaching aid to a few promising scholars who are deemed worthy of such support and encouragement.

 

The project will cost something to maintain. But how much in relation to its potential worth? As a reasonable estimate, it would seem that freedom attained in the past is still yielding economic benefits in the United States of at least $6,000 yearly for the average family. But our freedom has been eroding, and these benefits are endangered. Our civilization may even be threatened with collapse, as suffered by past civilizations which followed the path we are now pursuing.

 

If a project of this sort could succeed in developing even one person over a period of years of the stature of a Lord Acton or a Bastiat or a Davidson or a Burckhardt, what might it be worth to us and to our descendants?

 

By F.A. Harper

Feb. 1956

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

/The same with/Editing by Heath/

 

 

An Institute for the Science of Freedom

A Proposal for Research and Learning

________________

 

An informal institute to further the science of society is herewith proposed.

 

            The basic purpose of the institute will be research. But it is also proposed to offer help to a few worthy students in their study of the subject of freedom, to operate in the spirit of an informal graduate school to whatever extent means are forthcoming to make it possible for them to do so.

 

The budget and other details of the proposal will be dealt with in the latter part of this statement. First will be given, however, an explanation of why this type of institute is needed.

 

The World We Live In

 

Presumably we live in an ordered universe where “chance” is only our way of referring to something we do not yet understand. Were this not so, scientific discoveries would have been impossible. But since there is repetition of orderly occurrences, the underlying laws which they reflect can be revealed by scientific research. Knowledge of these laws, in one form or another, is what makes it possible for us to live in greater harmony with our environment — and abundantly, with harmony of spirit.

 

Humans are part of this ordered universe too, along with other forms of life and inorganic matter. So discovery of the principles of human affairs — the human environment — will allow mankind to live in greater harmony with all. Things of the spirit, too, extend this harmony beyond the realms of merely reasoned understanding.

 

Assuming an ordered universe, disorder and discord must be reflections of, and the consequence of ignorance and

contra-spirituality. This can never be corrected by processes of force. Any improvement must come from knowledge and from a feeling for things of the spirit, because their lack is the occasion of disorder and discord.

 

Progress in Science

 

Historically, mankind first sought satisfaction for its basic wants of food and shelter. Throughout most of history this has largely absorbed his energy and time. All his gains in productive power were balanced by his reproductive, bringing with it the need for more and more.

 

            So mankind has populated the earth, crowding more and more persons into the relatively few spots well adapted to human habitation. This, in turn, brought new problems — and the practice of freedom, in society, for the outgrowing of them. Not the problems, as such, but the manner of their resolution by society — the practice and potentials of freedom — shall be our primary concern. Not in government or force, not in slavery or war, but in the creative, and thereby spiritual, power of freedom, shall our inspiration be found. — Not the disorder and unreason but the rationality among men as among the atoms and the stars.

 

            The rationale of societal organization has been so little attended to, the wondrous rationality of nature can be used destructively and without rationality among men. As Dr. Warren Weaver once phrased it, “Our morals must catch up with our machinery.” For whereas material welfare has increased, so has covetousness and predation. Why? Can it be because a highly organized “assembly line life” has been part of the process? Is it because freedom and leisure have given persons not only more time for themselves, but also more time to mind the affairs of others — seemingly the more enticing of the two? Whatever the cause, an increasing loss of freedom threatens what civilization we now have until a science of society gives constructive understanding that under spiritual guidance can resolve disorder into order, discord into harmony.

 

            It is imperative that we probe into the nature of society far deeper than ever before. We must have faith that there are great unifying principles, eternal laws, and /that/, humbly seeking, we can fathom them.

 

An Approach to this Science

 

In seeking the basic laws of society, we can profit by the example of success in other fields.

 

            Since there is a fundamental unity in all nature, the path of success in the natural sciences may be assumed to apply in certain respects to the social sciences as well. By this I do not mean that the intricate details of methodology apply, necessarily. But the type of person and the environmental conditions probably do apply. This is where the history of science and the biographies of outstanding natural scientists prove helpful.

 

            Rather than attempt details here, reference is made to Science and the Planned State by Professor John Baker, Reflections of a Physicist by Professor Percy W. Bridgman, and The Path of Science by C. E. Kenneth Mees.

 

The nearer one gets to what is commonly called pure research, or the search for fundamental discovery, the less widespread is the market for it. No queue waits at the counter for fundamental research, anxious to buy these “silly abstractions.” In fact, the search may uncover nothing, which certainly attracts no buyers.

 

            The “market” for this type of research is indeed a strange one. The only sense in which there is a market at all is that someone of economic means may be wishing to finance its explorations. It is like one person staking another to prospect for gold which, if found, will go to benefit mankind in general rather than to either of them alone.

 

            Such work, then, has an exceedingly thin market. Historically it has been all but non-existent. Sometimes it was done in dusty attics, using up one’s meager savings in the endeavor.

 

            What the buyer of this type of work is buying is the exploration of the unknown by someone in whom he has confidence. One is buying integrity, ability, and devotion to the task of trying to produce something, as yet unknown, searching the realm of nature for the rational beauty and beneficence of God.

 

Team Work and Individual Work

 

 Dr. Warren Weaver once said:

 

“However, it cannot be assumed that this (the research team) will be the exclusive pattern for future scientific work, for the atmosphere of complete freedom is essential to science. There will always, and properly, remain those scientists for whom intellectual freedom is necessarily a private affair. Such men must, and should, work alone. Certain deep and imaginative achievements are probably won only in such a way.”[2]

 

This atmosphere of freedom is probably required above all for those qualified to study the nature and processes of freedom. They sense its absence acutely. And yet persons possessed of this sort of ability which Weaver is describing might well collaborate in their research. Properly designed, some sort of collaboration might well arise that would serve as a positive catalyst instead of as a negative force of distraction and frustration, as often occurs in organizational processes. The individual status of freedom might be maintained, while at the same time creating the ideal environment for cooperation —necessarily a voluntary affair (Ref.: Unpublished manuscript on the nature of cooperation in an organization).

 

            One of the major advantages of a joint endeavor and cooperation would be in teaching. For most of us, I’m sure, most of our worthwhile instruction came from the inspiration of one or two great teachers. If it were possible to attract to one spot two or more great teachers of the science of society, where students of outstanding ability could come for study, the fruits could be amazing.

The Proposal

 

The foregoing analysis leads to the following proposal:

 

            In furtherance of the objective of freedom, it is proposed to establish an informal institute of research and teaching in the science of society. It is to be the counterpart of a graduate school. But in not granting degrees—at least initially—it can avoid all the trappings of the “licensing” process of formal graduate work. Those who donate their personal endeavors will be doing so as students bent on learning something for the benefit of themselves and mankind.

 

            The institute at its beginning will be at a minimum of size, or one person. No larger size is required to start such an endeavor. It can then grow as desired by the participants — the financial supporters, the staff, and the students.

 

Initial Personnel

 

The qualifications of the person who is to be the initial member are given on the appended biographical sheet.

 

            Special attention is called to certain published works which reflect the intent, scope, and intended direction of the institute.

Location

 

At the start, the work of the institute would be done in the residence of the initial staff member, to save costs of unnecessary office space. Expansion or relocation would be considered as future developments warranted.

 

            The most desirable location, eventually, involves several types of consideration. Westchester County is expensive from he standpoint of living costs. Yet any other location would have to take into account such things as library facilities, accessibility for visiting personnel, and convenience to research materials.

 

            Suggestions for relocation would be invited, constantly. Perhaps a juxtaposition to some college or university would be advantageous. This would have many advantages, including the possibility that someday the institute might grow in esteem sufficiently to become some sort of affiliate to such a college or university without having to surrender its basic purpose and function; this would be the ideal, because of its potentialities as an outlet through the minds and hearts of young people — the teachers and formers of the coming generation. No higher destiny for an institute of freedom could be envisaged.

 

Growth and Staff Additions

 

Additions to the personnel of the institute would be contingent on the availability of financial means. For any additions with the intent of permanency, financial adequacy would include an addition the reserve fund at the level of the accumulation then attained and prevailing.

 

            As supporters were sufficiently impressed with the prospective fruits of the endeavor to contribute additional funds, others could be added by invitation. For instance, it is likely that for an additional $4,000 there could be attracted a top-quality student. And as further funds were made available, other students and additional staff could be added.

 

            Financial support might be provided to the institute direct, for additions of its own selection. Or the funds might be provided direct to the person himself, as a direct grant in the sense of a fellowship or staff addition. In some instances, students or staff might even add themselves, so to speak, from funds of their own or acquired by themselves.

 

Qualifications of additions to the personnel are of extreme importance, because no such endeavor can rise above the abilities of those who comprise it. It seems helpful in this connection to review the work of a few outstanding persons who have made notable contributions to the science of society and of freedom in the past, for they offer a model of its aim. Among those I would mention, whose attainments have been proved by the seasoning process of time, are Lord Acton, Jacob Burckhardt, Thomas Davidson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Everett Dean Martin, and Henry David Thoreau. The contributions of any one of these seems priceless to us now. What, if anything, did they have in common that could guide us in the selection of students and staff?

 

It was not their nationality, not their religious-cultural background. Nothing of that sort. These were highly varied.

 

It was not a similarity of education.

 

            It was not a particular type of environmental setting, alike for all.

 

            No, the things in common that these great contributors of thought on liberty seemed to have in common were these:

 

1.  Rare perceptive intelligence, and a type of esthetic appreciation and concern for mankind.

 

2.  A scientific type of mind, devoted to the search for truth per se. An ever readiness to review new evidence that might uproot one’s own hypothesis, not a searching for proof of a priori assumptions.

 

3.  A rejection of personal glory or contemporary popularity per se. Instead, the pursuit of truth and rational beauty as the sole objective. Some of the greatest works among these persons were, in fact, published posthumously from manuscripts previously unknown.

 

4.  In order to attain their best work, each seems to have sought the environment which was for him most inspiring. Bastiat, for instance, seemed to prefer seclusion, whereas Lord Acton and Burckhardt seemed to prefer university posts. Davidson chose the classrooms of a wandering scholar. But in every instance an environment of freedom was necessary for them to engage in fruitful work as independent, self-responsible seekers. The manner in which environment affects creative work has been well described by William Easton, in Mechanical Engineering, August 1946; by Leonard Carmichael, in The Scientific Monthly, April, 1954; and in John K. Williams’ books.

 

5.  The teaching of these persons took varied forms. Note, for instance, the contrasts between Bastiat, Davidson, and Acton in this respect. Bastiat’s teaching was largely through correspondence and published manuscripts; Davidson’s was mostly in itinerant classrooms; Lord Acton’s was in both formal and informal classrooms. Some were tutors.

The characteristics of great social scientists such as these have been portrayed clearly by Burckhardt in the chapter of his book Force and Freedom, about the great men of history.

In the Spirit of Freedom

            The institute described here is intended to be wholly consistent with the underlying assumptions of human liberty, thereby striving to attain its end by means entirely consistent with liberty.

 

            The design of the institute assumes, for instance, that an organization voluntarily cooperative can attain more than the sum total of individual personal efforts that a formalized organizational structure is likely to curb the productive spirit of individuals, especially in the area of research exploration and its influence in terms of potential is likely to be negative. The menial services essential for organizational operation can be obtained by hire at reasonable rates.

 

            The purpose of the institute is to provide opportunity for a few promising students of liberty to pursue independent, uncensored exploratory work, and to offer teaching aid to a few promising scholars deemed worthy of encouragement and support.

 

            The project will cost something to maintain. But how much in relation to its potential worth? As a reasonable estimate, it would seem that freedom attained in the past is still yielding economic benefits in the United States of at least $6,000 yearly for the average family. But our freedom is being eroded and those benefits are endangered. Our civilization may even be threatened with collapse, as suffered by those of the past which followed in the way we are now publicly pursuing.

 

            If a project of this sort could succeed in developing even one person over a period of years to the stature of a Lord Acton or a Bastiat or a Davidson or a Burckhardt, what might it be worth to us and to mankind?

 

By F. A. Harper

February, 1956