If you've ever been paid interest on savings, paid into a pension, invested in the stock market, rented out a possession, or taken advantage of your relatively privileged upbringing as leverage over others you're a 'rent seeker' too. It's a meaningless epithet.
It's quite possible and moral for a business owner to invest money in a business, pay their employees a good wage and keep them happy, and extract profit in return for taking on more of the risk, and having capital in the first place. In fact, that's the way most businesses run, and they often depend on investors who merely provide capital too.
Now if they inherited the money, extorted it, or gained it illegally, perhaps you have a case that the situation is unfair, but the mere fact of exploiting capital in order to make more is not in any way morally dubious.
I don't know of anyone who defines "rent seeking" as broadly as you just have. You're getting at saying that any sort of money-lending with interest is "rent seeking" and that's not what I'm trying to get at either.
And I agree, business owners should be compensated for what they put into a business. Forever, if they don't keep putting something into it? I don't know about that.
You haven't defined it at all, and I think if you try, you'll find it hard to differentiate between the use of capital to start a business and the use of capital for one of the other activities I listed above which bring in income with no effort. All are using existing capital to earn more.
Forever, if they don't keep putting something into it? I don't know about that.
If you accept that banks should pay interest on deposits (forever), or shares should pay dividends (forever), then you accept that owners should receive money forever for an initial investment, just as other holders of capital do for other investments. There's nothing nefarious or unjust about it.
you're creating a straw man with this "forever" business that keeps paying a checked-out owner a huge dividend. you don't like the idea of it because it's impossible.
in reality, over the long term (years), they are either run into the ground, embezzled from, or sold.
management and ownership will always eventually overlap in any sustainable business.
It's quite possible and moral for a business owner to invest money in a business, pay their employees a good wage and keep them happy, and extract profit in return for taking on more of the risk, and having capital in the first place. In fact, that's the way most businesses run, and they often depend on investors who merely provide capital too.
Now if they inherited the money, extorted it, or gained it illegally, perhaps you have a case that the situation is unfair, but the mere fact of exploiting capital in order to make more is not in any way morally dubious.