We have never truly practiced Laissez Faire capitalism. Granted we were closest to it during the 19th century. It was no coincidence that this was a period of great leaps of improvement of the human condition.
Since then corruption has brought us to the brink of ruin (some say we are beyond) by incremental steps. Liberty is lost one bit at a time. This only proves that man will corrupt the system, any system. This is the history of the world. Nations are established, they are corrupted, they are reformed.

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best." Benjamin Franklin (Constitutional convention excerpt)
What I want is immaterial. What will happen is, that there will be revolution, peaceful hopefully, but possibly violent. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson
It doesn't matter what we do as long as it creates value which others desire, now or in a star trek future. Early star trek had credits. Later ones had no need of currency, at least in star fleet but they made no satisfactory argument regarding how they changed the nature of man so he was satisfied with the system. It was a fantasy! And even then there were the Ferengi money/gold capitalists $$$. The medium of the currency is irrelevant so long as the parties reach agreement. Gold, paper, or sea shells it doesn't matter if your alien won,t accept your currency and wants gold or unobtanium you barter. Gold has been used for this purpose between nations but that is only because it is of value to that nation. A nomad may find needle and thread more valuable. You trade what you have to who wants it. You trade your skills/ the value you create, for your paycheck, sometimes by the hour sometimes by the job. You trade your paycheck for gold. Round and round it goes.
We should return to the gold standard, only because it constrains government inflation from printing, and corrupting the system so quickly. Somehow over time the corrupt collude, propagandize and utilize crises to find a way around it eventually, which is what happened.

When any currency regardless of form is deemed no longer of value those who gambled on its future lose. A new currency is adopted. Humanity moves on. There were plenty of Confederate notes.
I believe Rand has placed emotion in its proper place in ones cognitive hierarchy. No rational system can be devised to deal with the individual disparate emotions of society.
No, a system must be devised that operates justly indifferent to emotion, but allowing each their existence and individual pursuits. This is the ideal that our founders pursued as well as the times, disparate desires and their intellects allowed. It was not perfect, and in an attempt to perfect our union many good things happened, but also some in their hubris, imagined a utopia and in their zeal robbed us of our liberty and prosperity.
"The man of system... is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all it's parts, without any regard either to the great interests or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as a hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess board..." Adam Smith, the Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759

When men enter into a social contract voluntarily to form civil society, they accept the terms and costs as a fair exchange for the benefits it offers. Every generation has the duty to decide if they wish to abolish it, reform it, or leave it.

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impell them to the separation." I am sure you recognize the preamble to the DOI. One must decide when they no longer feel free and they no longer owe a duty to a tyrannical government but feel duty bound to throw off the shackles.
We need a small government to protect our person, property from the brutes, the "Atillas." Anarchy will free you from social contracts but expose you to force at the hands of the brutes.

Your mis/dis integrations in my opinion are in your perceptions of the nature of man, money and in your overall construct of governance and its purpose/necessity as demonstrated by your suppositions.
It is because of the assertions / conclusions you have espoused, that I find something wrong with either your metaphysics, or your epistemology. Of course since I see things differently and unless I can persuade you to see things as I do, you will undoubtedly question mine.
I do not believe in altruism. Benevolence is fine.
The Tit for Tat, and Prisoner dilemma are pshychobable. They are interesting academic exercises, novelties but they are games and in the real world they have little significance. In the real world people in significant numbers do not find themselves in these circumstances or think that deep and the metrics are unconstrained. One may give up their life for others and calculate/decide that they would see their will be done and see another live, thus gaining satisfaction or as you conceive it the good feeling of Altruism. But since you get the satisfaction of seeing your will done it is no longer altruism. Altruism does not exist! The definition of altruism is 1. unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness 2. Ethics- the doctrine that the welfare of society is the proper goal of an individual's actions; opposed to Egoism, Webster. Well, since the "self" was involved in the sacrifice and made choice more satisfying than the alternative it was not selfless. To be selfless is to be null, a sacrificial animal at best. You have denied your own right to existence. It is not my responsibility to put the welfare of society ahead of my own. Again this makes me a resource, a slave. No. Societies welfare is best when individuals are sovereign, and protected, because society is nothing more than an association of individuals.

Now here you go into a series of disparaging, hyperbolic remarks about Rand that I find unsubstantiated, mis-characterizations or misunderstandings. then an unsubstantiated attack on capitalism being geared only for the men of ability, disregarding any consideration for the overall benefit to man, and offering no serious alternative. Then you demand that the men of ability use the fruit of their labor to "free all men". This is not their duty. Remember you don't accept duty! But you have a duty whether you like it or not, it is to yourself. You must make your fruit in order to survive, or rely on the benevolence of others. You have no moral right to demand it of others, just as you resent the impositions of the social contract. To see otherwise is a contradiction.
I have spent far too much time on this and I am not inclined to play anymore since I asked you to keep it brief and it appears you wish to write an entire thesis. And I now find myself questioning your intentions and wondering if I am being played.

Either way I am afraid I can't commit this much time to your inquiries. One cannot expect to solve the worlds problems all at once, even if possible. You are trying to extract a lifetime of study from a man without that much left to spare. You must now be brief and select your particular priorities to argue, and before I consider continuing this dialog, I must know from you, what philosophers, economists, political scientists and founding fathers you have studied and which have influenced you most. I do not have time to sort through all of this, so at this point I am inclined to have you take up your arguments with a group of more scholarly men than myself by advising you on who to study if you are truly interested in examining/challenging your premises. From the reception you are recieving here it might be the best course of action before you seriously re-engage.
Taxed enough already,
O.A.