Regarding Wealth Limits
This is timely, since Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour party in the UK, just suggested such a thing yesterday. You can read all about it in various news articles. Corbyn suggested capping income; capping wealth would be even more terrible an idea. Capping income dis-incentivizes work, capping wealth means that once you have earned up to your wealth limit, there is very little incentive to keep working. Why not retire at that point?
From a fiery lefty perspective, you are much better off with very high taxes. Thomas Piketty (a reputable economist, unlike Jeremy Corbyn) suggests that the 1% can take an 80% tax rate without dis-incentivizing work. I don't agree with him, but that certainly seems more reasonable and less economy-distorting than a hard income or wealth cap.
Conclusion: wealth limits are probably fatal to an economy.
Regarding moderation of wealth
Saying that the 1% owns the 99% sounds inaccurate. The Atlantic quotes two different sources saying that the 1% in America owns 33% and 42%. Certainly still a lot, but not total.
The increased taxes are mentioned above as feasible. According to Wikipedia there are several countries where the general tax rate is over 50%, so using high taxes to reduce inequality is a reasonably well supported program. However, given that these high tax countries are the also the ones that can be generally described as capitalist (Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Canada, etc), no one really knows how much higher you can go with taxes. There is some analysis that high tax countries stagnated in the 1970s and have since liberalized their economies, reducing tax burdens, and have since performed better, with both the UK and Sweden being examples.
Offspring not inheriting much is referred to as estate taxes. These are already higher than they have been in the past, which is reducing the ability for Rockefellers and Vanderbilts and the like to pass on enormous fortunes. However, if I have a billion dollars, even a 99% tax still leaves my children with 10 million; a very sizable head start in life. A 100% inheritance tax would be effective at preventing money transfer between generations, but again would have significant impact on people's desire to work. If you already made 10 million, why keep working instead of retiring? You already have as much money as you can use for a lifetime and you won't be able to pass much if anything on to your family. Lastly, if you are implementing things like wealth limits or very high 80% + tax rates, the estate tax becomes somewhat redundant.
You will have to add some more evidence that capitalism encourages psychopathic behavior. That is not a generally supported statement.
Loosening patent laws is the one thing you suggest that seems to me the most wise. At best, patents are important in ensuring that the rewards for the effort involved in creating something innovative and new accrue to the developer. However, patents can also lead to restrictions on competition. A 25 year patent is a long time as fast as the modern economy moves; shortening them may be a good idea. Patents are themselves anti-capitalist in a strict sense; they are a means of restricting competition. They can be conceived of as a piece of government regulation.
Your statement, 'People who accomplish great achievements are properly rewarded by the people.' How?
As for 'Democracy is done directly by the people through the Internet,' how does the internet make democracy better? We already have media in place for expressing and aggregating popular votes. How does changing the media change the democratic system?
Generally, what you are proposing is a much stricter version of European social democracy. The practical effect will be simple; people who can potentially make a lot of money will leave your jurisdiction searching for somewhere were they will be rewarded more. I argue that a much of the US's success is due to its inequality. The rich of Europe come to America to get even richer, bringing their wealth and ideas. Look at how many foreigners are bigwigs in Silicon Valley, or how much money European banks park in American assets.
So, by enacting this sort of government, you will simply drive wealth and talent away from your country.