The concept of a corporation existing solely to maximize profit is a new development coming out of the Chicago school of economics. For most of our legal history, any company that received limited liability was required to consider a broader set of constituents; including shareholders, debt holders, employees and society. Often they were given an explicit charter from the king or the sovereign and were engaged in highly risky behavior that was believed to be extremely socially valuable but which most investors and managers wouldn’t pursue unless they weren’t personally liable.

This is as opposed to a general partnerships, which most businesses were until the 1980s, where the owners were personally responsible for all debts and harm the firm caused. Delaware didn’t even have LLCs until 1991 and corporations were much harder to form.

We don’t have to live in a society where a fundamental structure organizing human activity ignores the well being of many of the core constituencies it interacts with; we write the rules. We could decide that corporations and their officers have to balance their effort maximize value for shareholders, employees, debt holders, their local community and the country. The social contract can be negotiated.

I say this as a start up founder, entrepreneur, and capitalist.

Finally, your argument assumes competition exists to reap the benefits of competition; but monopolies and dualoplies such as Uber/Lyft exist specifically to achieve network effects and the pricing power they allow. That is clearly great for shareholders but inefficient for everyone else. Being a capitalist doesn’t mean being pro business in all its forms. Monopolies are destructive to innovation, wealth distribution, efficiency, and over the long term capital appreciation.

Anyway; No down vote from me.