No, it's absolute truth. Workers in generally are simply incapable of owning means of production beyond very small businesses, and their participation of the market as stockholders is minimal and comes with near-zero ability to influence the companies for which they might be shareholders.
Capital should be at the service of society, not the other way around. We know that we can have perfectly functional societies where wealth is distributed more evenly and less work is done at the lower end of the pyramid at essentially no disadvantages in quality of life for anyone involved.
What is "absolute truth" here? The manichean opposition that is proposed between "promote the general welfare of all citizens" and "give capitalists the opportunity to make as much money as they can"?
This is what I was addressing and I'm still considering as a very manipulating rhetoric that does not leave any place for nuance and balance.
The nuance and balance exists in the practice of states with maker-driven capitalist economies that still make an effort to capture and funnel a part of profits to the benefits of the participants of society regardless of their position in the market.
On the contrary, it's a vocal minority of libertarians that want to insist that benefits to capitalists are indispensable to the welfare of the rest.
Capital should be at the service of society, not the other way around. We know that we can have perfectly functional societies where wealth is distributed more evenly and less work is done at the lower end of the pyramid at essentially no disadvantages in quality of life for anyone involved.