Hi Pat,  
  
I've been paying close attention to the discussion.  I think it would   
have ended long ago had you directly pointed out the covetousness of   
George's single tax proposal: Roger Sandilands and Warren Samuels   
probably wouldn't have made their contributions after that.  
  
I think you are using the definition of entrepreneurship that Cantillon   
and most Austrians have employed, but which most people apparently have   
not become acquainted with.  (By that definition, the beggar or thief is   
an entrepreneur.)  That's why I think they can't see the point of a   
landowner being an entrepreneur.  However, I don't think you easily   
persuade people to treat landlords the same as all other property owners   
because they can always come back with the claim that land is fixed   
while other resources are not.  Therefore, landlords are a different breed.  
  
After a while, I just get tired of an interminable debate.  Get people   
to realize the essence of an argument.  Maybe then they'll quit their   
persistence in error.  (Talking about elasticities would just be another   
diversion and a waste of time.)  I'm pretty sure most admirers of   
George's single-tax argument don't realize that they are Marxists in   
disguise.  When they do, I think they'll quit belonging to that camp.   
That's what I'd been waiting for you to do.  I finally had to do it   
clearly myself.  
  
Cheers,  
  
James Ahiakpor