> I guess you could say it's no government at all, anarchy...only an organization to maintain order, defend the nation, and regulate monopolies

I agree with your second statement. Anarchy implies no laws at all. Pure Capitalism has laws and the means to enfore them, it just means no reditribution of wealth. Those that suceed and make money keep it and those that don't get squat. It means no welfare, unemployment, disability, work programs, or food stamps. It also implies no subsidies and very small and non-graded taxes. Taxes would still be levied at a minimal rate, but not for the purposes of redistribution of welath; only for a small amount of services like infrastructure, some civil servants (such as cops and firemen), and defense. Basically the economic part of the platform of the Libertarian party. It is a tempting view, but flawed in my opinion. If pure Socialism's weakness is that it believes too much in the inherent goodness of people, pure Capitalism's is that it panders to to their inherent selfishness.

> not just a chosen few as socialist and communist governments usually end up

Just don't confuse the two. Democracy and despotism are opposite sides of the same line, and Socialism and Capitalism are opposite sides of a perpindicular line. Communism was really just Socialist despotism (or perhaps oligarchy). Many countries, especially in Europe, lean towards a Democratic Socialism, and Nazi Germany was a pretty decent example of a Capitalist despotism, or the even better example of some Italian cities-states in the Renaissance.

> I think the framers of the constitution did a good job of this.

I agree. And I am not knocking Capitalism, it really seems to be the natural economic methodology for humans. I just think that it needs to be tempered a little bit.