That is pretty much why the Constitution had checks and balances, in order to insulate it from the human element, by pitting elements against each other. It worked, until capture of the assorted branches became too concentrated for the checks to balance.

This isn't to say that the Constitution is a bad idea. Rather, I view laws and bureaucracy as a type of social technology. There are merits and demerits in the make and placement of components, and without good design, maintenance, or a well thought out replacement, the technology will inevitably fail.

We need a v2.0 Constitution for a better United States, one designed to eliminate flaws, loopholes, or even add new checks & balances outright. For example, term and age limits on supreme justices, with each state having 1 popularly voted supreme every 10 years. We don't want congress nor the president to select who interprets law, because it becomes a game of trickery or horse trading. We need younger and more diverse justices to represent the land's people.

In addition to this, I believe that we will need floors and ceilings to be set on wealth, alongside the provisioning of universal benefits to all people. By doing this, America and other nations can guard from the corrosion that excessive individual wealth can cause. We have to prevent the existence of future Musks, and design an economy that allows the many to live in comfort and freedom, without letting individuals metastasize into a cancer.

the problem is the human element

I absolutely agree. The difference is that the incentives of capitalism virtually guarantee exploitation and inequality. It's a system that encourages the concentration of wealth and power. Antisocial and anticompetitive tactics maximize returns and ensure that bad actors willing to put profit above anything else benefit the most and rise to the top as leaders and bosses. It relies on competition and, assumes "market forces" will self correct an imbalanced system... eventually.

Unless you want a brutal, unstable system where power and wealth accumulate and get concentrated until a violent shift (hopefully) collapses that power and eventually market forces pick a new "winner" you need regulation to keep the profit motive in check and competition fair. Still, the rules of the system encourage regulatory capture as competitive actors try to gain advantage however they can, regardless of the impact on the general population.

Socialism, honestly, has become a weird catch-all term for critiques of capitalism looking to align the goals of society toward democracy and equality. There is a ton of theory and different methods of achieving or implementing such a society but that's kind of where I see things.

Within that eventual ideal society there is still the ability for people to exploit each other for power. The human element doesn't disappear. The idea is that it is harder when the goal of the system is to ensure everyone has what they need and everyone gets a say in how things are done. The system needs to be built and tweaked with checks and balances to ensure that power doesn't get concentrated without the ability for the greater population to redistribute that power.

Basically, unless you are a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism (no government involvement) then you recognize the danger posed by unfettered capitalism. Socialism attempts to change the incentives so that society can be designed, fundamentally, to minimize the danger posed by that human element. It recognizes that a democratic and fair capitalist society is an oxymoron.

I have a challenge for you. Again, assuming you are not a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, think about the ways that our capitalist society could be improved by new regulation or the removal or adjusting of existing bad regulation (Edit: regulation is meant to include laws, taxes, etc). How many of those regulations don't exist - were proposed and shot down - because those empowered by capitalism (Edit: **who have achieved disproportionate wealth and power via capitalism and wish to maintain their status) have fought tooth and tail to prevent them? How many of those bad, restrictive, existing regulations were implemented, or twisted, by those empowered by capitalism?

Edit: Look around the world at the questionable actions performed by the United States and ask why did the US do that? What was their incentive? More often than not, it involves preserving and furthering the power of those who already hold a disproportionate amount of power in that capitalist society.

Narcissistic assholes are born everywhere, randomly.