That doesn't seem to me like a mentality of competition. It seems to me like a mentality of just going with the status quo. Competition in no way requires going with the status quo. If you can out-compete others by changing the rules, competition tells you to change the rules. David was competing with Goliath; David won the competition by changing the rules.

To the extent competition is harmful, it's harmful because, as noted at the start of the article, it tends to foster a zero-sum mentality: the only way I can win is for you to lose. But creating wealth, which is what "competition" is ultimately supposed to be about in the economic sense, requires positive sum exchanges. Positive sum means everybody wins. That's what I was expecting the rest of the article to be about; but it isn't. It's just about a different kind of zero sum, where you make the competitors lose by changing the rules instead of by playing better than them within the existing rules.