There's a fundamental difference between creative capitalism, which is the application of intelligence and organisation to the creation of new resources and opportunities from new materials and ideas, and extractive rentier capitalism, which is a zero sum game that works on the principle of monopolised control of limited resources - to the extent that it may actually deliberately limit those resources purely for profit. (See also Enron, pharmaceuticals, OPEC, and many other examples.)
If I own a significant amount of property in a town I can increase rents to "the level the market will bear" - which will have the sole effect of enriching myself at the expense of everyone else in the town.
Proponents of capitalism who don't understand how capitalism actually works always say "Yes, but someone can always compete with me and charge lower rents."
Except they won't, and this never happens, because once an exploitative individual begins creating a monopoly, the feedback loop never works in that direction. It's incredibly hard to destroy a monopoly through market means alone, and lower prices certainly aren't enough to do it on their own.
Why worry about monopolies? Because they're the inevitable outcome of limited ownership. Unequal access to resources is magnified until either a monopoly or a cartel results.
Any suggestion that equates the ability to create this outcome with a basic human right is preposterous. A more nuanced definition of economic rights would severely limit rentier capitalism while encouraging creative capitalism - but intervening to maintain innovation before monopolies or cartels become the main political and economic players.