This is a reply to Roy Davidson's suggestion that we put the discussion   
into historical context by referring to Albert Nock. The reply is   
necessary because the quotation threatens to divert one's attention to a   
set of subjects that are irrelevant to the policy issue.  
  
The Georgist proposal being evaluated, I would like to remind Roy, is   
whether a tax on land rents or on increments in market value of land   
would cause a distortion. In other words, can an unearned increment be   
identified and taxed? If a Georgist tax causes the same broad kinds of   
distortion as other taxes, there is obviously no significance to the   
Georgist proposal or to his reasoning behind it.  
  
All of this business about the sources of wealth and the causes of   
property is irrelevant to the policy issue, which is the thrust of all   
modern Georgist appeals. Such diversions are sometimes used by Georgists   
to change the subject when challenged. Roy tell us that he introduces   
Nock�s quotations in order to �put the discussion into historical   
context.� Perhaps he could explain further why context is necessary and   
how Nock's these ideas help to provide context. It seems to me that the   
only relevant question is whether the Georgist proposal is capable of   
achieving the aims that George claimed it could achieve.  
  
George defended his tax proposal with a classical theory of land rent.   
In my view, a reasoned analysis of the likely effects of that proposal   
-- one carried out by putting oneself in the shoes of those affected --   
reveals the superiority of the neoclassical "entrepreneur view" approach   
to policy evaluation over the classical approach and leads to completely   
opposing conclusions about what the tax would accomplish. Of course,   
this is only "revealed" to those who are willing and able to keep their   
minds on the policy issue.  
  
With respect,  
  
Pat Gunning