Calling Georgism "common ownership of land" is seriously misleading. A tax is not ownership, no matter how many times the neo-feudal "vulgar libertarians" (as Georgists and geolibertarians call them) try to establish the trope via mere repetition.
Common ownership is the term Henry George used. Of course, keeping the title system was specifically preferred in order to limit the scope of government.
Just need to pay for the land you use, since it belongs to all.
We should, perhaps, distinguish common ownership from public ownership. The concept of the Commons is one that people ought to understand. Something can be owned in common without it being managed by the government.
George wrote a lot about the commons, and you're right that it's important to understand the relationship between state/common/private ownership, but I stand by the statement that its use here - without that context, where more common capitalist vs. communist notions of property are already being discussed - is misleading. It's like throwing "bad faith" into a discussion without being clear that it refers to a domain-specific concept from law or existentialist philosophy.
