"Rather than nationalize land outright, the single taxers would levy a 100 percent tax on the annual land rent — the annual income from the site — which amounts to the same thing as outright nationalization." --Murray Rothbard
Georgism is reasonably well known among free-market enthusiasts and libertarians.
The single quote is understandably a narrow view of the larger article. My view is that the 100% tax on income from the land removes profit motive and price discovery in a way which is similar to outright nationalization. However, I agree with your assessment of the quote as a stand alone item.
It removes profit incentive of reselling land to somebody who wants to use it. It doesn't remove profit incentive of the activity you'd want to perform on that land.
Land under 100% LVT only becomes an input to production. And makes it unprofitable for holding it for somebody else.
When you are in business of making apple pies you simply buy apples as input. You don't need any middlemen holding them for you if you can hold them yourself.
Actually, no. Land in the PRC is under state ownership, but except for exceptions that would tall under eminent domain here, it is mostly priced by auction, outside of agriculture.
In any case, public land ownership is not in conflict with rent auctions.
In fact it is similar to the error of those who equate slavery and wage slavery. With the latter, you have a choice of employer, even without safety nets.
Georgism is reasonably well known among free-market enthusiasts and libertarians.