> I suspect are some pretty large inefficiencies implied by requiring continual re-bid/repurchase of existing real property You are incorrect to suspect that.

> I suspect are some pretty large inefficiencies implied by requiring continual re-bid/repurchase of existing real property You are incorrect to suspect that. The price must still be discovered in the Geogist system through market means, and the additional burden of rediscovering it to issue the tax means doing that work twice. You are on a software forum so I assume you understand computers well enough to appreciate that the effort required for this in practice is essentially zero. A system sufficient to serve an entire nation of people could be programmed by perhaps ten engineers. > I would wager there's a reasonable amount of literature around the benefits of surety You can't just assume someone else has made your point for you and expect me to buy that. The system of government ownership can provide any degree of surety depending on how its implemented, but in general the objective of both systems is to force people to sell land instead of hording it, i.e. to reduce the surety people have over their ability to occupy land indefinitely. > a tax based on the value of something is called rent This is not a redefinition of language, but a simple observation that the two things are identical in practice. > don't act surprised if you get lumped in with those who argue against private ownership of real property. I don't care how justified you feel in mischaracterising my views. > so maybe 'government ownership' isn't quite the panacea? Yes, clearly if you read my argument made thusfar it dictates that government ownership is only effective when it is leased back to people in a market fashion. "The government owns it but you have an indefinite lease with no charge" is another example of changing the language of something without changing the practice of it. In practice, you own that land. Finally, I am going to ask that you no longer attempt to find differences between Gerogism and social ownership. When you look at the actual implementation of both systems, they are the same. Any policy in Georgism has a one-to-one equivalent policy under government ownership. In fact Georgism is equivalent to a government ownership system with the following setup: 1) Leases are indefinite. 2) A substantial upfront cost is levied against people who wish to acquire a lease, determined by the highest bidder. 3) The charge on a lease is determined by some fraction of the upfront cost on surrounding leases of buildings. Having observed this, we can see that it could be improved by removing the upfront cost, and instead have the lease determined by the leases on surrounding buildings when those buildings are vacated and the lease is put back up for auction. Forced renewal of leases is not necessary under a government ownership system as the increase in lease prices should be enough to naturally remove under-performing businesses. However the opportunity to renew a lease gives you a positive advantage over a Georgist one: if you feel your rent is too high, you can subject it to market scrutiny by voluntarily ending the lease on the property and offering the highest bid in the resultant auction.