> You've yet to explain why the people living there have more of a claim to the land than anyone else in society.

Generally one would ask that the people proposing a change to circumstances assume the burden of proof; it should be obvious why I can’t remove the food from your kitchen and expect you to justify why I should stop.

If you want a more formal argument then its turtles all the way down, I can approach your preferred landowners on the day post-acquisition and use the same procedure to expropriate them, someone else can do the same to me on the next day, ad infinitum.

> The model you've proposed is basically "first come first serve" (ie. homesteading principle). Except even that doesn't apply given that some of the land currently in private ownership was previously used by others, who were forced off it, via colonization in North America, and the enclosure acts in Europe. Should we return the land to the descendants of the Native Americans?

You are aware that many people argue that we should do exactly that, correct? I’m not aware of many people who argue to the contrary, and I’m not sure there is any use in reciting their arguments here.

The expropriation of the Natives is almost universally regarded as a moral wrong in polite society. its fine for you to disagree but I’m at a loss as to why you would assume that I disagree.

> Given that land is a scarce good, and access to good land gives substantial benefits to those with access, "first come first serve" simply isn't a workable way to allocate land.

This is a non sequitur as you’ve failed to explain why one person’s good deal is unworkable for another.

> Those with land are able to charge rents to those without, and they can pass this privilege down to their heirs, keeping this inequality going.

It seems that you’re assuming that inequality is a bad thing. I think inequality is a fact, and the moral implications must be argued for rather than assumed.

> Suppose the government decides to build a new transit line going to the edge of the city. The rents and property values along the line will increase. And in most places, income and sales taxes fund at least part of the cost. So renters will pay some of the cost, but get no financial benefit,

Why aren’t the renters gaining financial benefit from improvements to mass transit in their area? It seems that you’re arguing against the government being able to fund boondoggles from taxes.

> On the other hand, the landowners will pay some of the cost, but they'll also profit from the increased rents and land values. Essentially, renters pay "twice" for government services: once for the actual service, and then again when the existence of the service leads to higher rents, which are then reaped by landowners.

I feel as though you’ve neglected to consider that the renters benefit from mass transit and therefore there’s no reason for them not to be expected to pay for it; and the fact that public infrastructure results in higher land values is covered under the property tax that we already have established. This whole thing could be bypassed by arguing that these types of improvements should be paid by property taxes (excluding sales taxes etc.).

> Basically every economist agrees with the principles behind Georgism, starting from Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and continuing to modern economists like Milton Friedman and Joseph Stiglitz, so I don't really know what you're talking about here.

Yeah if you think this is a reasonable statement of the economic consensus vis a vis Georgism I doubt we can learn much from discussion with each other, nice talking and have a good day. Thanks for the Ricardo link.