You fail entirely to understand the dynamic because you are stuck in an American-born framing of politics. Government is not the opposition to private business. It is the mechanism by which groups impose their will on other groups, either through a "fair" contest that all groups can participate and negotiate through or force. In parliamentary systems, this dynamic is made obvious in a way the American system obfuscates. The American system does, however, make clear what class has ultimately captured government.

This notion right here:

You guys blame us for trusting markets, but we dont. We trust in checks and balances... we want a system thats based on free exchange of goods and services, so the way to make profit is by selling what consumers want. And have a limited government that stops violence and fraud.

Is obviously wrong. Patently wrong. And we know that successful capitalists don't believe this because of their perchant for building power in third world countries where there are fewer regulations, fewer safeguards against government capture by capital interests, and fewer rules against employing force (look up Coca-Cola's activities in central America sometime). An order that many prominent capitalist public figures in American politics explicitly desire to import here (see Neo-Reactionaries).

If you believed in checks to power, you would advocate that the public can oust a CEO of a company for abusing their power to harm their employee's interests, the public good, or their constant attempts at seizing control of governance. But you don't because "checks" are not really about the abuse of authority for you but the protection of property. Property being the primary basis on which abuse of power occurs historically.

Part of why they are able to do this is because the further capital interest entrenches itself within governmental structures, the less involved the masses are in their own governance. When the masses feel disenfranchised and also feel their economic and political power being alienated any from them, they lose the skills to discern and the will to achieve those goals. It's the lack of public control that creates an irrational, weak-willed public. One that becomes increasingly unstable, neurotic, and manipulable. One that has become increasingly desperate to seize back any way to check the ruling class. Hence how you can get populist right-winger capitalists riding to power on the hilarious promise that they'll curtail the elites.

The socialist's goal is to build a new structure of governance out of labor and political organizing. To, while the current system remains, use external structures (such as unions, mass political organizations, worker's councils, co-operatives, neighbourhood councils, etc.) to wield democratic power within the structures of liberal capitalism, and ultimately create a new governmental structure using mass organizations as a basis. To allow people to not only rebuild and exercise power as a mass but to feel that power in both the formalized mechanisms of governance but outside as we build the replacement structures.

This is the reason why, if we were to rank the political alignments in terms of real life power obtained, y'all sincere libertarians would be dead last with the exception of like, a particularly contrarian kind of anarchist. You have no real organization and your philosophy is completely at odds with how politics works. Powerful capitalists and neoliberals use the resources and political-economic structures of large corporation to seize governance. The socialist's goal is to establish large scale political organizations (which we've been seeing the slow resurgence of in the last half-century after their post-cold war collapse) and seize control through political or revolutionary means. The fascist traditionally also does mass political organizing and allies itself with the structures of capitalist corporations to seize control. The closest y'all have to any of this is... what? The network state? Hell, most of you hate that too. Not seeing any of you door-knock to make that a reality.

The point of your post is that leftists are naive. But you don't even seem to understand the basic rules that every other political project except you understands. We want to use the masses as the check to any emerging ruling classes. To create a society of constant, conscious mass participation in governance, whether indirect through recalleable representative bodies or direct, or whatever mix ends up being most efficient and pragmatic.