Interesting points!

Secondly, the concept of intellectual property is not exclusive to capitalism, nor does it do anything to protect or benefit the actual workers producing or innovating the goods, it only protects the private capital-owner. Capitalism ensures that a private owner can structurally reap the benefits of hundreds of other people's labor, without the owner even needing to do any work themselves. Capitalism ensures that a private owner owns the profits of an innovation, whether or not they even did anything to build the actual product, which is an incredibly anti-worker system.

In regards to selective distribution, yes, all systems inherently have some means of allocating a limited supply of resources, but I would again argue that market capitalism has a terrible means of organizing this. Capitalist distribution is not determined by "market forces", it is determined by the conscious decisions of private owners. "The market" does not decide anything, people do; it is simply a great many private owners making their own conscious decisions over their own private property to amass and protect their own personal profits. There is no intangible or objective force behind this, it is just private interests making economic decisions for all of society for their own personal gains. The capitalist organization of the economy is inherently oligarchic and anti-democratic.

When it comes to profit-driven innovation potentially leading to harmful products, if you agree that it is a concern, and that regulation and oversight are the solutions to this, then why do you not recognize that these things should be structurally implemented? Why should we even allow private profit-seeking interests to be in charge of our economic decisions in the first place when we could instead utilize public decision-making for our own public interests? If we recognize that private interests cannot be trusted to make economic decisions without public regulation and oversight, then we should cut out the middleman and make the economy publicly-owned, without private interests.

And again, the role of capitalism in innovation is simply to siphon the profits away from workers and into the hands of private owners. Capitalism, nor the private sector, is responsible for any innovation, advancement, or production, working-class labor is. The labor of workers is what is solely responsible for all economic innovation and production under any system; capitalism, however, merely determines that the profits of these workers' labor should belong to private capital-owners. That is what makes capitalism a bad system: its inherently anti-democratic organization of the economy.

We can and should have a system in which our economy, and all it's resources, are owned by and for the public, where all workers themselves have control over their own workplaces and our resources, goods, and services can be allocated directly to where they're needed without the need for investments or profit. A system of collective, democratic public-ownership is infinitely better for society than capitalism's individualist, oligarchic private-ownership.