This came up in another thread, it's not quite on topic there but it was interesting enough as an idea I thought it merited further discussion.
You seem to be making a few points here, which don't always quite align.
There's a clear difference between you renting out your property and renting out your person, and you can easily oppose one without the other. As your yourself seem to argue, the issue with prostitutes is not that they're cruelly taking advantage of thier clients, it's that they're often taken advantage of themselves and are often not doing this of thier own free will and cannot be verified to be doing so, a situation that is not the case when it comes to landlords, where as you again say, the moral issue is client side.
Which brings us to your second point. I would first note that "paid more than the thing is worth" is hardly unique to apartments. It can happen with mortgages, vehicles, vehicle repairs, appliance repairs, etc.
That aside, I don't see why it's immoral to allow such a thing to happen. Perhaps someone prefers the cheaper rent over the cost of a mortgage and likes the convenience of not having to maintain the home, for example. Why is it wrong to allow them to make that choice?
Also there is a strong argument to be made that renting as a business should be done away with. If you own more than one house either sell it, or keep it as a summer home or something. People who say that people should be able to use what they own to make money however they want are dishonest unless they are extreme libertarian. Most conservatives are pro renting and leasing(instead of buying and selling ownership in the property as a whole) and are pro usury because they say people should be able to engage in commerce however they want, yet they also pass laws to ban prostitution where a woman might want to use what she has to make money. It’s not consistent.
No what I have a problem with is you owning a house say worth $100,000. Then charging someone to live in there with rent $1000 a month within ten years if they lived there they would have paid more than the house is worth, that’s why I feel renting and usury should be banned because it’s immoral just like prostitution is immoral.
You seem to be making a few points here, which don't always quite align.
There's a clear difference between you renting out your property and renting out your person, and you can easily oppose one without the other. As your yourself seem to argue, the issue with prostitutes is not that they're cruelly taking advantage of thier clients, it's that they're often taken advantage of themselves and are often not doing this of thier own free will and cannot be verified to be doing so, a situation that is not the case when it comes to landlords, where as you again say, the moral issue is client side.
Which brings us to your second point. I would first note that "paid more than the thing is worth" is hardly unique to apartments. It can happen with mortgages, vehicles, vehicle repairs, appliance repairs, etc.
That aside, I don't see why it's immoral to allow such a thing to happen. Perhaps someone prefers the cheaper rent over the cost of a mortgage and likes the convenience of not having to maintain the home, for example. Why is it wrong to allow them to make that choice?