>All land starts out near worthless and in the middle of no where. //

No. People don't raise armies to steal land that's worthless. If you're going back to pre-history then the land near a nice river that has plenty of game, isn't predated by larger animals, and has nice fruit trees is worth way more to a person than some section of desert.

If right to live on land also goes with rights to exploit resources beneath the land then disparities in value as you approach the industrial era become massive.

How much of that intrinsic value is still there once everything is paved?

There is a concept called "path dependence". Something may be important to get you from point A to point B, even if at point B you perhaps don't use it at all.

You start with a place with nice fruit trees near the river, then a few people build their houses there, then someone builds roads and a port, then someone builds larger houses, then someone builds factories... and at some moment in the future, there is a huge city, but the river is poluted and the trees were cut down.

There is another place with no trees and no river. Hundred years later, there is no city.

That's what Georgism is about: fully separating those two concepts. The land is valuable because of the community; the property is valuable because of its owner. So under Georgism, all land is held under common ownership, with the land's value being entirely taxed away from its occupier, allowing you to profit personally only by improving the property and supplying value to others thereby.

No thanks.

A shot in the dark here, but I assume you own land? ;)

I do and I also respect others property rights. Communal ownership and responsibility should only cover those things for which there are no other options, even then they are hard enough to deal with.

Under Georgism, you have the right to all the property you want. It just classes land as (I think?) the only thing which is "not property".