It's not considered exploitative to charge for groceries, clothing, or other necessities, so why is housing seen differently by some?
There is indeed a case to be made for universal access to basic necessities but the case against rent extraction is more basic than that.
To your point about people preferring renting to owning who have the option of both, I am not directing my argument against this case but the general case instead - most people do not have the option of affording housing except through the rentier capitalist avenues of rent or mortgage. It is these people who are being parasitized by this form of economic activity.
I have to assume you have never been responsible for maintaining a property. Unless someone is renting out a cave on a triple net lease, your statement above is hilariously inaccurate.
> most people do not have the option of affording housing except through the rentier capitalist avenues of rent or mortgage.
If most people can't afford it, then why do most people live in a home that is owned by a member of their household (either themselves, or their parent/guardian)?
2) Less than 40% of households are fully owned. The rest have mortgages or are rented.
2. Of course, people with mortgages are still considered property owners legally and by nearly all of society.
If you had, I would have probably not wasted my time on this discussion with a leftist who might as well be arguing that humans should breathe water instead of air.