I actually think there's a lot of merit to it.
I've always been troubled by the idea of generational wealth corrupting the free market. I know people say it'll even itself out, but it just seems like things will trend toward large government if capital can be accumulated over generations. Those with money will buy power, and those with money and power will use their power to prevent fair competition. Georgism kind of protects against that because owning property becomes a drain on wealth, so new wealth needs to be created to maintain it.
Having real property be owned collectively justifies certain libertarian solutions to negative externalities, such as solving pollution with a carbon tax (instead of a hand-waivey "micro-damages" argument, it's a fine for polluting collectively owned property). It's also a convenient way to avoid eminent domain, since contracts can be renegotiated or allowed to expire to allow for whatever the project is, so the government should never need to seize anything.
I do have concerns though. If property is all owned collectively, the natural degradation path is top down restrictions on how you can use property. The way to combat this is through strong contract law, but the government needs to be firm that contracts are not inheritable nor can be sold, otherwise it could just devolve into private property rights again, but only for the rich and powerful.
In general, I'd like to see a stronger push for land value taxes, shorter IP protection terms, and taxes focused on negative externalities. I don't know if we need full georgism, but a step in that direction could be a good way to simplify government and reduce top down power.