Is this the kind of critique you're looking for? >A common explanation of Georgism’s failure is that the philosophy itself is flawed and, ultimately, would str

Is this the kind of critique you're looking for? >A common explanation of Georgism’s failure is that the philosophy itself is flawed and, ultimately, would strengthen collectivism and the state, not individualism. In this vein Tucker asked a fundamental question: How can a collective like society own land if such ownership is improper for individuals? Either land could be owned by an individual — and, thus, sold or transferred to another individual — or it was not subject to ownership at all. He considered collective ownership to be a contradiction in terms. Or, as Tucker might ask, “Can I sell my share? No? Then I don’t own it either individually or as part of a collective.” >It is to such critiques of Georgism that Part II of this article will turn. Granted, that might be a good criticism of Georgism from the perspective of a committed anarchist, but I was expecting, you know, economics.