This is a reply to Peter's question about the  
difference between George and contemporary economists  
on the difference between land and other property.    
  
The term "land" is obsolete in my opinion. Economists  
like the Austrians (except for Rothbard), Davenport  
and Knight sought to expel the notion of land as a  
distinct factor of production. But Ronald Coase went  
beyond these to argue that it is best to define land  
as a factor of production in the following way.  
  
"We may speak of a person owning land and using it as  
a factor of production but what the land-owner in fact  
possesses is the right to carry out a circumscribed  
list of actions. The rights of a land-owner are not  
unlimited. It is not even always possible for him to  
remove the land to another place, for instance, by  
quarrying it. And although it may be possible for him  
to exclude some people from using "his" land, this may  
not he true of others. For example, some people may  
have the right to cross the land. Furthermore, it may  
or may not be possible to erect certain types of  
buildings or to grow certain crops or to use  
particular drainage systems on the land. This docs not  
come about simply because of government regulation. It  
would be equally true under the common law. In fact it  
would be true under any system of law. A system in  
which the rights of individuals were unlimited would  
be one in which there were no rights to acquire."  
(Coase 1988: 155)  
  
A lot of confusion regarding the land value tax could  
be cleared up if people defined land it terms of legal  
rights to control the performance of actions. Defined  
in this way, there is no significant difference  
between land and other property.  
  
  
Coase, R.H. (1960) "The Problem of Social Cost." The  
Journal of Law and Economics. 3: 1-44. Reprinted in R.  
H. Coase. (1988) The Firm, the Market, and the Law.  
Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.  
  
Pat Gunning