Georgism Should be Implemented in the United States

I've only read cursory articles dealing with Georgism so this will surely be a learning experience for me. Try to go easy on me. I will try to make my case as concise as possible. My case will be mostly moral, in defense of completely private land ownership. My case defends land as an object of rightful ownership by individuals. This will be both a criticism of Pro's arguments against private land ownership as well as a positive case in defense of it. An inquiry into Pro's justification of his utilitarian framework will also be included. Before I begin though I should distinguish from what I intent to criticize and what I do not. The elimination of all other taxes (income, sales) is something I'm wholly in agreement with. So the elimination of those taxes will not be in dispute here. Rather, it is the creation of a high single tax on land (as well as the arguments in support of such) which will form a large part of this debate. Moral problems in implementation. First, it should be noted that Pro has failed to adequately justify why land itself cannot be privately owned. The resolution implies a need for "moral" justification through use of the word "Should". Why should I do something? It can either be because doing so is a legitimate means towards an end I desire (a hypothetical imperative) or it could be because I have a moral obligation to do so (a categorical imperative). Pro seems to have taken both approaches. He uses the categorical approach in asserting the common nature of land (being a turn on private ownership) and the hypothetical approach in his basic utilitarian/economic reasoning. The assumption being that we all want or should want what Georgism would bring. But this second approach generally boils down to the first. Especially if someone fails to share your goals. Non-Georgists could theoretically share the believe with Georgists that the single tax program would bring more prosperity but nevertheless oppose it for moral reasons. Pro is then burdened with showing a coherent and inter-subjectively valid (i. e. , not opinion-based) moral reason in support of Georgism. (1) So far , Pro has implicitly presumed a utilitarian stance (at least partially). However, he has failed to adequately defend it. Hence I ask that he bring some argument for why we should be utilitarians (therefore making economic arguments morally binding) in the next round. Until then though there's no reason to accept his main line of reasoning. I need not refute Pro's economic reasoning since there are more relevant moral reasons against the implementation of Georgism. (2) Pro's quasi-moral reasoning is also open to many flaws. He argues that entitlement arises out of labor and since land (separate from improvements on it) cannot be the fruit of our labor, private entitlement to land is not existent. But why should we accept Pro's first premise? He fails to supplant a reason for why this is the only method to property acquisition. Other theories, such as first-use (homesteading) certainly have an air of plausibility to them. Why does Pro simply jump over them to assert (without foundation) that his is the correct procedure? (3) Secondly, Pro's point is highly inconsistent. No one ever acts truly alone in applying their labor to create something. Just like we had no hand in creating land, most of us had no hand in developing the things we base our labor off of every day. For instance, we can safely presume that under Georgism, it would be permissible to apply one's labor to, say, some unowned debris someone found to create a work of art. But we had no part in the creation of the debris itself so it seems to logically follow from Georgist doctrine that we have no right to use this debris. And the same applies to most everything we do. No one is the sole creator of the things they use. Economies are so interconnected and complex that this would be an impossibility. Therefore, the Georgist is caught up in a seeming inconsistency in only applying this rule to land, while allowing other forms of personal property to go un-taxed. I can foresee Pro possibly going back to the Georgist proposition that all economies are essentially land-based, but I fail to see any instance where he attempted to justify this proposition. Pro needs to do so before we can take his claim very seriously.