ABSTRACT
This present chapter is concerned with the fourth argument, and discusses in particular George’s use of the terms ‘equal’ and ‘common’ in the context of the right to own land. It asks whether a distinction between the ‘equal and private right to land or land value’ and the ‘common and public right to land or land value’ was intended by George, and whether such a distinction is valid. It is a contention of this chapter that an important theoretical distinction can be made, and should have been made by George, between ‘common public ownership of land’ and ‘equal private ownership of land’, and that this theoretical distinction has implications for the practical implementation and political acceptability of his policy of land-value taxation.
