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 The term "land" is obsolete in my opinion.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