Sorry, what is your actual objection here? I'm not saying anyone should be forced to sell below market price - I'm saying the market price is inflated by the the cost of land: Land that no one created, land that is not a product of any human market.

The point of a Georgist land-value tax is to separate the value of the land from the value of buildings on the land. Land itself is a public good and should be taxed as such.

I don't disagree that the market price is inflated. Lots of market prices are inflated. Many people here are paid in or own (or both) stocks of tech firms whose value is inflated by at least as much or higher. Have not heard anybody claim that they are earning too much money. Easy to punch others though.

It is, in fact, a common kind of economic policy approach, to disincentive rent seeking. This does not apply to labor income, generally.

I can't begin to understand what the quoted section you start your comment with has to do with the comment of mine that you replied to. I didn't say anything about any of that stuff...

Sorry, took some liberties to paraphrase how your comment sounded to me. You seem to have little respect for what others own, but I'm assuming you expect others to respect your private property. I was trying to illustrate that somewhat selfish inconsistency.

I still have no clue whatsoever how my comment could have sounded like that paraphrase to you.

I'm very confused what private property you think my comment suggests I do not respect.

The land somebody owns is private property, is it not?

Yes. But nobody is talking about taking anybody's land. What's your point?