Capitalism with reasonable regulation

A free market is just the right path for total submission. As I said before, a free market is extremely good for the wealthy and horrible for the weak. I understand the libertarian view of capitalism as a wealth promoter, though this wealth won't be common as in theory. Power does not corrupt humans. Human nature uses power for corruption. Even though, a well-chosen leader will probably never get corrupted if people keep a close eye to the governor, where they have access to government affairs and can complain. Corruption is something present in human society, and no one could ever change this, neither in capitalism nor socialism. Back in the beginning of humanity, picking, for instance, Middle Age, money wasn't made at first for the slaves, mate, but for the nobles and the Church. Slaves had only the payment of receiving home and food, that's all. The nobles and religious people had access to everything, they OWNED everything. This system of privileges kept on for a millenium (A THOUSAND YEARS! That's too much!)[1]. Now advancing to the French Revolution, we observed that in the birth of the Age of Enlightenment, people by the first time ever started to criticise considerably the existence of a God, rulers and had access to this powerful weapon called science. Ever since, capitalism ceased from favouring only kings and the minorities, but the people itself. In the future, people would learn economics, politics, among other sciences such as physics, mathematics, et cetera. What I mean with the previous is that money is unhealthy for humans, and that no regulation to the market (free market) is doomed to fail. Since you mentioned U.S., the Great Depression in 1929 was the best example for failure of a free market economy. An overestipulation of production and lack of purchase led the stock market to suffer a horrible crash[2], which impacted the entire world (not USSR though, as socialism is not damaged by capitalist economic crises). President Franklin D. Roosevelt had to resort to Keynesianism, as I believe you already know as the opposite of neoliberalism, which boosted the U.S. economy with the series of political methods called the New Deal. People got employed again, had good quality of life and raised the United States back to the position of economic power. By studying anarchocapitalism, which is a way of free market but with absolutely no government intervention, you notice the same proposal you have placed: everyone has their private property and no one has the right to touch them. Who will guarantee you that right? You, only. With your guns, defencive methods and anything you want, you shall protect your private area. But what will happen if a person has "too much gear for self-protection"? They will want to use their resources to conquer others' territories, starting a war among capitalists which would bring total disorder, chaos, death to the poor (let's say 99% of Earth since most people will work as slaves) and only one corporation monopoly shall stand in the end. Say whatever you want about the books you read, though this is the outcome of a POLITICAL-ECONOMIC system that was elaborated by ECONOMISTS in the 1950s. Oh, I almost forgot of the crap products they would impose selling to people, such as the actual fast-food services or bad cars in the future, since no government would be there to manage quality and consequently corporations could build up many trusts[3], holdings[4] and cartels[5], guaranteeing market supremacy and therefore no competition. References: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.economicshelp.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org...