It doesn’t mean one disagrees with capitalism even if one thinks there need to be laws to keep it honest..
Or as close to honest as possible.
The Founding Fathers were realists.
The understood unrestrained power’s consequences.
And that is kind of what msft and amzn and goog are heading towards.
They are the humanist which is the religion based around collectivism.
Collectivism's moral base is the general "PublicMind" at any given time. It blows around based on public perception of the moment. Collectivism can not have natural rights.
As TomKat puts it. They're ethically illiterate.
Socialists love to conflate “society” with "government.” But as Thomas Paine showed in Common Sense, they are not merely different, but in a real sense opposites.“Socialism” is better described as governmentism, and “capitalism” is, etymologically speaking, better described as “societyism.”
Governmentists are cynical about society, and (correspondingly) are naive about government. “Capitalism” is a term coined by Marx as a straw man, and perhaps can be used to denote the opposite of governmentists - that is, naive about society and correspondingly cynical about government. But altho there are all too many governmentists is America and worldwide, and many opponents thereof, there are in actuality very few who would fit that definition of “capitalist.”
No, instead you find in opponents of governmentism not an opposite pattern of cynicism and naivete but rather an aversion to both cynicism and naiveté. You find, that is, skepticism. We are skeptical about the ability (and even, in the worst case, the desire) of the government to do good, and yet are skeptical enough of society to admit the necessity of some government.
Cynicism is not “extreme skepticism,” because skepticism implies doubt, and cynicism implies (negative) certainty. If you were cynical about “A,” and if “B” were the opposite of “A,” cynicism towards “B” would be incoherent. Naiveté towards “B” would be coherent with cynicism towards “A."