There is a position in between "all rental arrangements are okay" and "no rental arrangements are okay".

I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking would have no ethical objection if the landlord charged an amount corresponding to costs of maintaining and renting the house (taxes, upkeep, risk, management, etc). The objection is when a landlord is able to work a few hours a month managing their properties and realize a sizable income.

Rent-to-own arrangements might also be considered ethically acceptable.

I'm not trying to propose a practical policy here, just suggesting some potentially ethical arrangements.

"I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking"

Jesus fuck I just wish people would stop throwing that word around trying to sound like economists when they obviously have no idea what it even means. Renting out real estate is not rent seeking.

> Renting out real estate is not rent seeking.

While to a certain extent real estate has been transformed into something that, in some cases, approximates a commodity, it is historically the canonical non-subsitutable monopolized good where each item lacks perfect substitutes, which is why “rent-seeking” is literally named after what landlords do. Renting out real estate is the “trope naming” instance of rent-seeking.

ok, then perhaps I should say, "seeking rent for long periods of time on a necessity, with no exchange of value in the long term for the person paying"

exactly this ... there needs to be a discussion about what the right balance to strike is. Rent-to-own would be a fantastic thing to be more popular (especially if you can take your equity with you when you leave ... even if only a portion of it, so that renting/risk still has rewards (yes I realize this arrangement probably isn't common (if at all), but it should be)).