i'm an anti-capitalist. i have a systemic critique with the systems of power which allow people who own things to acquire wealth on the basis of that ownership. billionaires are products of the same system which allows uncle landlord to impose rent on people who have no other option but to rent, because their obscene wealth comes from the exact same mechanism of ownership.

even if we didn't have billionaires and corporate ghouls buying up every piece of property, and it was instead all owned by nice old uncles and aunties, the actual practice of owning land you aren't using so people who need land have to pay you for it to live is still morally bankrupt, and is likely to reproduce new billionaires and corporate ghouls as those uncles and aunties consolidate their excess land into investment firms and property management companies to maximize the economic output of the land they own. the problem isn't that billionaires exist, its that our economic system is set up to funnel resources towards the people who start out with the most resources.

i'm not saying that him selling the land is a good or morally preferable option, either. i just found the notion that a person is only a landlord because they inherited land a silly argument. there's plenty of things you can do with land that isn't renting it.