You need to understand that when people have problems with landlords, they do NOT have a problem with the SERVICE part of what they offer.

They have a problem of it being used as an investment, rather a job.

No one is suggesting that someone putting all the time and effort to get a building built shouldn't get paid for the time they've spent doing that. But that's where that payment stops, when they've gotten paid for the hours they spent working on that.

When housing becomes service AND monopoly, that is where the issue is. Land ownership is problematic, and profiting off of a state backed monopoly is even worse.

If by “service,” you mean the part where I pay someone else’s mortgage, then, yes, I have a problem. If you mean taking care of maintaining the property (which is what I think you’re getting at), then I don’t have a problem paying fair value for the labor involved.

Yes that's exactly what I am referring to.

I don't have a problem with someone transforming land and subsequently renting that land to recoup the cost of materials and labor. My issue is that the state enables profits far in excess of cost by granting the original proprietor a permanent title to that land without having to occupy or use it. Outside of the threat of state violence, I see little reason why we should recognize absentee property claims as legitimate.

That’s why you pay builders. Are you trying to claim there would be a literal, physical shortage of buildings to live in if not for landlords? If so, [citation needed].

Who would pay for the buildings / decide who gets to live in which ones?

Are you talking about personal homes or other types of construction?