There are many who believe that men are sheep; there are other who believe that men are wolves. Both sides can muster good arguments for their positions. Those who propose that men are sheep have only to point to the fact that men are easily influenced to do what they are told, even if it is harmful to themselves; that they have followed their leaders into wars which brought them nothing but destruction; that they have believed any kind of nonsense if it was only presented with sufficient vigor and supported by power—from the harsh threats of priests and kings to the soft voices of the hidden and not-so-hidden persuaders. It seems that the majority of men are suggestible, half-awake children, willing to surrender their will to anyone who speaks with a voice that is threatening or sweet enough to sway them. Indeed, he who has a conviction strong enough to withstand the opposition of the crowd is the exception rather than the rule, an exception often admired centuries later, mostly laughed at by his contemporaries. It is on this assumption—that men are sheep—that the Great Inquisitors and the dictators have built their systems. More than that, this very belief that men are sheep and hence need leaders to make the decisions for them, has often given the leaders the sincere conviction that they were fulfilling a moral duty—even though a tragic one—if they have man what he wanted: if they were leaders who took away from him the burden of responsibility and freedom. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

However, if most men have been sheep, why is it that man’s life is so different from that of sheep? His history has been written in blood; it is a history of continuous violence, in which almost invariably force has been used to bend his will. Did Talaat Pasha alone exterminate millions of Armenians? Did Mr. Hitler alone exterminate millions of Jewish people? Did Mr. Stalin alone exterminate millions of political enemies? These men were not alone; they had thousands of men who killed for them, tortured for them, and who did so not only willingly but with pleasure. Do we not see man’s inhumanity to man everywhere—in ruthless warfare, in murder and rape, in the ruthless exploitation of the weaker by the stronger, and in the fact that the sighs of the tortured and suffering creature have so often fallen on deaf ears and hardened hearts? All these facts led thinkers like Hobbes to the conclusion that homo homini lupus (man is a wolf to his fellow man); they have led many of us today to the assumption that man is vicious and destructive by nature, that he is a killer who can be restrained from his favorite pastime only by fear of more powerful killers. Yet the arguments of both sides leave us puzzled. It is true that we may personally know some potential or manifest killers and sadists as ruthless as Mr. Stalin and Mr. Hitler were; yet these are the exceptions rather than the rule. Should we assume that you and I and most average men are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and that our “true nature” will become apparent once we rid ourselves of those inhibitions which until now have prevented us from acting like beasts? #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

This assumption is hard to disprove, yet it is not entirely convincing. There are numerous opportunities for cruelty and sadism in everyday life in which people could indulge without fear or retaliation; yet many do not do so; in fact, many react with a certain sense of revulsion when they meet cruelty and sadism. Is there, then, another and perhaps better explanation for the puzzling contradiction we deal with here? Should we assume that the simple answer is that there is a minority of wolves living side by side with a majority of sheep? The wolves want to kill; the sheep want to follow. Hence the wolves get the sheep to kill, to murder, and to strangle, and the sheep comply not because they enjoy it, but because they want to follow; and even then the killers have to invent stories about the nobility of their cause, about defense against the threat to freedom, about revenge for bayoneted children, raped women and men, and violated honor, to get the majority of the sheep to act like wolves. This answer sounds plausible, but it still leaves many doubts. Does it not imply that there are two human races, as it were—that of wolves and that of sheep? Furthermore, how is it that sheep can be so easily persuaded to act like wolves if it is not in their nature to do so, even providing that violence is presented to them as a sacred duty? Our assumption regarding wolves and sheep may not be tenable; is it perhaps true after all that wolves represent the essential quality of human nature, only more overtly than the majority show it? Or, after all, maybe the entire alternative is erroneous. Maybe man is both wolf and sheep—or neither wolf nor sheep? #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

The answer to these questions is of crucial importance today, when nations contemplate the use of the most destructive forces for the extinction of their “enemies,” and seem not to be deterred even by the possibility that they themselves may be extinguished in the holocaust. If we are convinced that human nature is inherently prone to destroy, that the need to use force and violence is rooted in it, then our resistance to ever increasing brutalization will become weaker and weaker. Why resist the wolves when we are all wolves, although some more so than others? The question whether man is wolf or sheep is only a special formulation of a question which, in its wider and more general aspect, has been one of the most basic problems of Western theological and philosophical thought: Is man basically evil and corrupt, or is he basically good and perfectable? The Old Testament in the Christan Bible does not take the position of man’s fundamental corruption. Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God are not called sin; nowhere is there a hint that this disobedience has corrupted man. On the contrary, the disobedience is the condition for man’s self-awareness, for his capacity to choose, and thus in the last analysis this first act of disobedience is man’s first step toward freedom. It seems that their disobedience was even within God’s plan; for, according to prophetic thought, man just because he was expelled from Paradise is able to make his own history, to develop his human powers, and to attain a new harmony with man and nature as a fully developed individual instead of the former harmony in which he was not yet an individual. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

The Messianic concept of the prophets certainly implies that man is not fundamentally corrupt and that he can be saved without any special act of God’s grace. However, it does not imply that this potential for good will necessarily win. If man does evil, he become more evil. Thus, Pharaoh’s heart “harden” because he keeps doing as of right-doing, and does not exempt even exalted figure like King David from the list of evil doers. The Old Testament view is that man has both capacities—that of good and evil, blessing and curse, life and death. Even God does not interfere in his choice; he helps by sending his messengers, the prophets, to teach the norms which lead to the realization of goodness, to identify the evil, and to warn and to protest. However, this being done, man is left alone with his “two strivings,” that for good and that for evil, and the decision is his alone. The Christian development was different. In the course of the development of the Christian Church, Adam’s disobedience was conceived as sin. In fact, as a sin so severe that it corrupted his nature and with it that of all his descendants, and thus man by his own effort could never rid himself of this corruption. Only God’s own act of grace, the appearance of Jesus as Christ, who died for man, could extinguish man’s corruption and offer salvation for those who accepted Christ. However, the dogma of original sin was by no means unopposed in the Church. Pelagius assailed it but was defeated. The Renaissance humanists within the Church tended to weaken it, even though they could not directly assail or deny it, while many heretics did just that. Mr. Luther, had, if anything, an even more radical view of man’s innate evilness and corruption, while thinkers of the Renaissance and later of the Enlightenment took a drastic step in the opposite direction. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

The latter claimed that all evil in man was nothing but the result of circumstances, hence that man did not really have to choose. Change the circumstances that produce evil, so they thought, and man’s original goodness will come forth almost automatically. This view also colored the thinking of Mr. Marx and his successors. The belief in man’s goodness was the result of the tremendous economic and political progress which started with the Renaissance. Conversely, the moral bankruptcy of the West which began with the First World War and led beyond Mr. Hitler and Mr. Stalin, Coventry and Hiroshima to the present preparation for universal extinction, brought forth again the traditional emphasis on man’s propensity for evil. This new emphasis was a healthy antidote to the underestimation of the inherent potential of evil in man—but too often it served to ridicule those who has not lost their faith in man, sometimes by misunderstanding and even distorting their position. As one whose views have often been misrepresented as underestimating the potential of evil within man, I want to emphasize that such sentimental optimism is not the mood of my thought. It would be difficult indeed for anyone who has had a long clinical experience as a psychoanalyst to belittle the destructive forces within man. In severely sick patients, he sees these forces at work and experiences the enormous difficulty of stopping them or of channeling their energy into constructive directions. It would be equally difficult for any person who has witnessed the explosive outburst of evil and destructiveness since the beginning of the First World War not to see the power and intensity of human destructiveness. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

Yet there exists the danger that the sense of powerlessness which grips people today—intellectuals as well as the average man—with ever increasing force, may lead them to accept a new version of corruption and original sin which serves as a rationalization of the defeatist view that war cannot be avoided because it is the result of the destructiveness of human nature. Such a view, which sometimes prides itself on its exquisite realism, is unrealistic on two grounds. First, the intensity of destructive strivings by no means implies that they are invincible or even dominant. The second fallacy in this view lies in the premise that wars are primarily the result of psychological forces. It is hardly necessary to dwell long on this fallacy of “psychologism” in the understanding of social and political phenomena. Wars are the result of the decision of political, military, and business leaders to wage war for the sake of gaining territory, natural resources, advantages in trade; for defense against real or alleged threats to their country’s security by another power; or for reason of the enhancement of their own personal prestige and glory. These men are not different from the average man: they are selfish, with little capacity to renounce personal advantage for the sake of others but they are neither cruel nor vicious. When such men—who in ordinary life probably would do more good than harm—get into positions of power where they can command millions of people and control the most destructive weapons, they can cause immense hard. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

In civilian life they might have destroyed a competitor; in our World of powerful and sovereign states (“sovereign” means not subject to any moral law which restricts the action of the sovereign state), they may destroy the human race. The ordinary man with extraordinary power is chief danger for mankind—not the fiend or the sadist. However, just as one needs weapons in order to fight a war, one needs the passions of hate, indignation, destructiveness, and fear in order to get millions of people to risk their lives and to become murderers. These passions are necessary conditions for the waging of war; they are not its causes, any more than guns and bombs by themselves are causes of wars. Many observers have commented that nuclear war differs in this respect from traditional war. The man who will press the buttons sending off missiles with nuclear charges one of which may kill hundreds of thousands of people, will hardly have the experience of killing anybody in the sense in which a soldier has this experience when he used his bayonet or a machine gun. Yet, even though the act of launching nuclear weapons is consciously nothing more than faithful obedience of an order, there remains a question of whether or not in deeper layers of the personality there must exist, if not destructive impulses, yet a deep indifference to life, to make acts possible. Three phenomena form the basis of most vicious and dangerous s form of human orientation; these are love of death, malignant narcissism, and symbiotic-incestuous fixation. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

The three orientations, when combined, form the “syndrome of decay,” that which prompts men to destroy for the sake of destruction, and to hate for the sake of hate. In opposition to the “syndrome of decay,” there is the “syndrome of growth”; this consists of love of life (as against love of death), love of man (as against narcissism), and independence (as against symbiotic-incestuous fixation). Only in a minority of people is either one of the two syndromes fully developed. However, there is no denying that each man goes forward in the direction he has chosen: that of life or that of death; that of good or that of evil. The United States of America and China have one of the World’s most important and complex bilateral relationships. The history of the relationship between China and Russia has also gone through many phases. Since 1920-21 when the hopes for a revolution in Europe were fading, the hope for revolutions in Asia became an important point on the agenda of communism. Even then there existed a conflict within the ranks of communism. Mr. Lenin thought in terms of support for, and alliance with, the national revolutions of the Chinese bourgeoisie against the Western powers, while the Indian, Roy, emphasized the necessity for a workers’ and peasants’ revolution against their own bourgeoisie. The victory of the Chinese Communists was almost entirely a Chinese accomplishment, with almost no help from Russia. Mr. Stalin supported the Kuomintang, Chiang, Kaishek’s government, and there is good reason to assume that the very weakness of the Kuomintang regime suited him well. This is borne out by the fact that in the Yalta agreement Mr. Stalin succeeded in re-establishing Russia’s rights in Manchuria, and after the war he pressed the Kuomintang to surrender its former sovereignty over Outer Mongolia. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

When the Kuomintang government had to relinquish Nanking, Mr. Stalin instructed the Soviet ambassador to accompany the Chiang Kai-shek government to Canton, while most of the other ambassadors remained in Nanking to await the Communists. Even after the success of the Chinese Communists, economic help from Russian was quite limited. Chinese investments were virtually all made with internal savings, while financial assistance from the Soviet Union was not substantial. From 1950 to 1956 the Soviet Union promised technical and financial aid to 211 projects. The financial aid consisted of leans and not grants; it was enough only to pay for about one third of the equipment needed for the Russian-sponsored projects, and during 1952 to 1957 the amount of Russian credit available for new investment constituted merely 3 percent of the total state investments. This limited financial aid, nevertheless, does not alter the fact that the technical assistance that the Russians gave by sending specialists was of great importance, and the first Five Year Plan could hardly have been accomplished without such aid. However, even as far as technical assistance is concerned, one must not forget that Chou En-Lai wrote in the People’s Daily in October 1959, that the “Soviet Union has sent over 10,800 experts to the East European satellites, over 1500 to China during the previous decade,” and furthermore that most Russian experts left China in 1960. The ambiguity of Russian-Chinese relations developed into a manifest antagonism only since 1959, although all the elements of the conflict existed and were occasionally mentioned before. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

The main point of contention between Russia and China is: the question 1) of peaceful coexistence with the West, 2) of peaceful methods to achieve the victory of communism in various countries, 3), of atomic armament for China, and 4) of whether the Russian or the Chinese way is the more correct path to communism. The main question from the standpoint of Western foreign policy, undoubtedly, is the conflict between the Russian position in favor of coexistence, and the Chinese policy which is less hesitant to risk the possibility of war. This conflict seems to have broken out during Mr. Khrushchev’s visit to Pekin on the tenth anniversary of the Chinese revolution in 1959. While the speeches during the celebration emphasized peaceful coexistence, Mr. Khrushchev left Peking without even signing the usual friendly communique together with Mr. Mao. What had happened? “We must assume,” says Mr. Halpern, “that Khrushchev, on arrival in Pekin, notified the Chinese leaders that he was satisfied that a mutual accommodation with the West was both desirable and attainable and that he intended to enter into serious negotiations. He probably dictated to them some limits on their future military development. He almost certainly demanded at least a modified style of behavior in foreign affairs, and more likely some substantive policy changes. He probably also assured them that he would not negotiate away their interests, but at the same time urged them to be prepared for less than their maximum demands. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

After some meditation, it seems that the Chinese agreed that their method of dealing with South and Southeast Asia had not been successful, but with regard to the policy toward the West (and the other problems mentioned above) their attitude hardened increasingly. They adopted the thesis of an inevitable and permanent conflict between the two camps, and they took the position that American “peace gestures” were nothing but a smoke screen for the United States of America’s wish for World domination. The Russian position on the other hand, remained clearly one of “peaceful coexistence.” The following statements represented the two positions quite succinctly: Khrushchev: “Let us not approach the matter commercially and figure out the losses this or the other side would sustain. War would be a calamity for all the peoples of the World. Imagine what will happen when bombs begin to explode over cities. These bombs will not distinguish between Communists and non-Communists….No, everything alive can be wiped out in the conflagration of nuclear explosions. Only an unreasonable person can be fearless of war in our day.” On the other hand, this is the Chinese position according to Mao Tse-tung: “If the imperialists insist on unleashing another war, we should not be afraid of it….World War I was followed by the birth of the Soviet Union with a population of 200 million. World War II was followed by the emergence of the socialist camp with a combined population of 900 million. In the imperialists insist on launching a third World War, it is certain that several hundred million more will turn to socialism.” Considering the difference between the Russian and the Chinese attitudes toward war and peace, two questions arise. First, whether these differences are as real as they appear to be or whether, as some people are prepared to believe, Mr. Khrushchev was using his “soft” line only in order to create a favorable climate for the summit meeting. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

Considering the prolonged and intense ideological argument going on between the two blocs, an argument that was resolved by a compromise solution (after three weeks of negotiations) almost completely in favor of Mr. Khrushchev’s position in the declaration of the 81 Communist Parties in Moscow, 1960, it does not make sense to assume that the Chinese would put up all this violent ideological opposition if they knew or assumed that Mr. Khruschev was making a point only for short term tactical reasons. To answer that the whole Chinese opposition is only part of a fine plot which wants to make it appear as if Mr. Khrushchev is serious is no longer realistic political analysis, but paranoid thinking. The other question is why the Chinese take such a stand on thermonuclear war, of which they seem to be much less afraid than are the Russians. One obvious reason has often been mentioned. With their lack of centralization and their much larger population, they may think that thermonuclear war would bring to their system a much smaller degree of destruction than would be the case for the Soviet Union or the United States of America, and hence leave them the strongest power in a postwar World. Whatever their views on this topic are, one must not forget that the Chinese leaders have an evangelistic fervor, which the Russians lack for reasons that were discussed earlier. However, whether these considerations mean that the Chinese want war and that their course is, under all circumstances, an unchangeably aggressive one, is another question to which we shall return in a little while. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

The will to truth, which still leads us on to many a venture, that famous truthfulness of which all philosopher hitherto have spoken with such reverence—what question has this will to truth put to us! What wondrous, wicked, questionable questions! That is already a long story—and yet it seems as if it has hardly begun. Is it any wonder that we finally become suspicious, lose patience, turn away impatiently? That we ourselves are also learning from this Sphinx how to pose questions? Who here is really asking us questions? What in us really wants “the truth”?—In fact, we paused for a long time before the question concerning the cause of this will—until, at least, we came to a complete standstill before an ever more fundamental question. We asked about the value of this will. Granted, we want truth. Why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?—The problem of the value of truth confronted us—or was it we who confronted it? Which of us here is a mythical figure? Which the Sphinx? It is a rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks. And, incredible though it may seem, it strikes us that the problem has never been put—that we were the first ones to have seen it, to have our eye on it, to venture it. For it is a venture, and perhaps there is none greater. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

In this hyperinflation economy, many Americans are struggling and one topic that is really being pursued right now if the implement of the guaranteed income. Generally speaking, we must change our system from one of maximal to one of optimal consumption. This would mean: A vast change in industry from the production of commodities for individual consumption to the production of commodities for public use: schools, theaters, libraries, parks, hospitals, public transportation, housing; in other words an emphasis on the production of those things that are the basis for the unfolding of the individual’s inner productiveness and activity. It can be shown that the voraciousness of homo consumnes refers mainly to the individual consumption of things he “eats” (incorporates while the use of free public services, enabling the individual to enjoy life, do not evoke greed and voraciousness. Such a change from maximal to optimal consumption would require drastic changes in production patterns, and also a drastic reduction of the appetite-whetting, brainwashing techniques of advertising, et cetera. It would also have to be combined with a drastic cultural change: a renaissance of the humanistic value of life, productivity, individualism, et cetera, as against the materialism of the “organization man” and manipulated ant heaps. These consideration lead to other problems that need to be studied: Are there objectively calid criteria to distinguish between rational and irrational, between good and bad needs, or is any subjectively felt need of the same value? (Good is defined here as needs that enhance human aliveness, awakeness, productivity, sensitivity; bad, as those needs that weaken or paralyze these human potentials.) #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

It must be remembered that in the case of drug addiction, overeating, alcoholism, we all make such a distinction. The study of these problems would lead to the following practical considerations: what are the minimum legitimate needs of an individual? (For instance: one room per person, so much clothing, so many calories, so many culturally valuable commodities such as a radio, books, et cetera.) In a relatively abundant society such as that of the United States of America today, it should be easy to figure out what the cost for a decent subsistence minimum is, and also what the limits for maximal consumption should be. Progressive taxation on consumption beyond a certain threshold could be considered. It seems important to me that slum conditions should be avoided. All this would mean the combination of the principle of a guaranteed income with the transformation of our society from maximal to optimal individual consumption, and a drastic shift from production for individual needs to production for public needs. It is important to add to the idea of a guaranteed income another one, which ought to be studied: the concept of free consumption of certain commodities. One example would be that of bread, then milk and vegetables. Let us assume, for a moment, that everyone could go into any bakery and take as much bread as he liked (the state would pay the bakery for all bread produced). As already mentioned, the greedy would at first take more than they could use, but after a short time this “greed-consumption” would even itself out and people would take only what they really needed. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

Such free consumption would create a new dimension in human life (unless we look at it as the repetition on a much higher level of the consumption pattern in certain primitive societies). Man would be freed from the principle “he who does not work shall not eat.” Even this beginning of free consumption might constitute a very novel experience of freedom. It is obvious even to the noneconomist that the provision of free bread for all could be easily paid for by the state, which would cover this disbursement by a corresponding tax. However, we can go a step further. Assuming that not only all minimal needs for food were obtained free—bread, milk, vegetables, fruit—but the minimal needs for clothing (by some system everybody could obtain, without paying, say one suit, three shirts, six pairs of socks, et cetera, per year); that transportation was free, requiring, of course, vastly improved systems of public transportation, while private cars would become more expensive. Eventually one could imagine that housing could be solved in the same way, by big housing projects with sleeping halls for the young, one small room for older, or married couples, to be used without cost by anybody who chose. This leads to the suggestion that another way of solving the guaranteed-income problem would be by free minimal consumption of all necessities, instead of through cash payments. The production of these minimum necessities, together with highly improved public services, would keep production going, just as guaranteed-income payments would. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

It may be objected that this method is more radical, and hence less acceptable, than the one proposed by others. However, must not be forgotten that, on the one hand, this method of free minimal services could theoretically be arranged within the present system while on the other hand, the idea of a guaranteed income will not be acceptable to many, not because it is not feasible, but because of the psychological resistance against the abolishment of the principle “He who does not work shall not eat.” One other philosophical, political, and psychological problem has to be studied: that of freedom. The Western concept of freedom was to a large extent based on the freedom to own property, and to exploit it, as long as other legitimate interests were not threatened. This principle has actually been punctured in many ways in Western industrial societies by taxation, which is a form of expropriation, and by state intervention in agriculture, trade, and industry. At the same time, private property in the means of production is becoming increasingly replaced by the semi-public property typical of giant corporations. While the guaranteed-income concept would mean some additional state regulations, it must be remembered that today the concept of freedom for the average individual lies not so much in the freedom to own and exploit property (capital) as in the freedom to consume whatever he likes. Many people today consider it as an interference with their freedom if unlimited consumption is restricted, although only those on the top are really free to choose what they want. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

The competition between different brands of the same commodities and different kinds of commodities creates the illusion of personal freedom, when in reality the individual wants what he is conditioned to want. A new approach to the problem of freedom is necessary, only with the transformation of homo consumens into a productive, active person will man experience freedom in true independence and not in unlimited choice of commodities. The full effect of the principle of the guaranteed income is to be expected only in conjunction with: (1) a change in habits of consumption, the transformation of homo consumens into the productive, active man (in Mr. Spinoza’s sense); (2) the creation of a new spiritual attitude, that of humanism (in theistic or nontheistic forms); and (3) a renaissance of truly democratic methods (for instance, a new Lower House by the integration and summation of decisions arrived at by hundreds of thousands of face-to-face groups, active participation of all members working in any kind of enterprise, in management, et cetera). The danger that a state that nourishes all could become a mother goodness with dictatorial qualities can be overcome only by a simultaneous, drastic increase in democratic procedure in all spheres of social activities. (The fact is that even today the state is extremely powerful, without giving these benefits.) Together with economic research in the field of the guaranteed income, other research must be undertaken: psychological, philosophical, religious, education. The great step of a guaranteed income will succeed only if it is accompanied by changes in other spheres. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

It must not be forgotten that the guaranteed income can succeed only is we stop spending 10 percent of our total resources on economically useless and dangerous armaments; if we can halt the spread of senseless violence by systematic help to the underdeveloped countries, and if we find methods to arrest the population explosion. Without such changes, no plan for the future will succeed, because there will be no future. This is why people need to curb their temptations. “Temptation” is a scheme or a plot, or compulsion on the part of the tempter to cause another to do evil, whether consciously or unconsciously; but an attack is an onslaught on the person, either in life, character or circumstances: for example, the ultimate negative made an onslaught on the ultimate concern through the villagers when they sought to hurl the Lord over the brow of the hill (Luke 4.29); when His family brought a charge of insanity against Him (Mark 3.21); and when He was charged with demon possession by His enemies (John 10.20; Matt. 12.24). Temptation, moreover, means suffer, as we see again in the life of Christ, for it is written, “He suffered being tempted” (Hebrews 2.18), and believers must not think they will reach a period when they will not feel the suffering of temptation; this is a wrong conception, which gives ground to the enemy for tormenting and attacking them without cause. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. From Thee, O Lord, comes our wealth, and from Thine own, do we give unto Thee. Please keep the Sacramento Fire Department in your hearts and minds this holiday season and make a donation to help support them in keeping our communities safe, for they work hard and risk their lives and are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Millhaven Homes

BEYOND
THE BUILD

When building a custom home, your experience is just as vital as the final product you live in. Whether you’re building a custom home in Utah or another state, we can help. Our team at Millhaven goes beyond the build with our full-service approach to each project. https://millhavenhomes.com/