The New York–based debate group Open to Debate held a public debate on a provocative topic that strikes at the core of modern America: “Should the US be ruled by a CEO dictator?”
Moderator John Donvan began by recalling a historical anecdote: After the American Revolutionary War, some of George Washington’s officers seriously urged him to accept a crown and become the new nation’s king. They believed that only a strong leader could stabilize the chaotic domestic situation. Washington, however, rejected the idea outright, calling it “an idea repugnant to mankind.”
This rejection of “rule by a single person,” together with James Madison’s belief that concentration of power is “the very definition of tyranny,” formed the foundation of the American Constitution and governance system. But as more voices now claim that the system is broken, this old “monarchy” idea has resurfaced, dressed in modern clothes as the concept of a “CEO dictatorship.”
Pro side: Curtis Yarvin
Computer scientist and political philosopher, also known by the pen name Mencius Moldbug. He argues that America’s current governance system has failed, and that strong, CEO-style dictatorial leadership is the most effective way to solve national problems. His ideas are gaining influence in Silicon Valley and among parts of the new right.
Con side: E. Glen Weyl
Economist, founder of the Plurality Institute, and researcher at Microsoft. A leading figure in “digital democracy,” he advocates updating and strengthening democracy through digital technology. He counters that dictatorship has always failed—historically and empirically—and that democracy’s flaws should be overcome by upgrading, not abandoning it.
The Core Arguments
[Yarvin] “CEO dictatorship is the most efficient and natural form of governance.”
Yarvin argued that people’s instinctive revulsion toward the phrase “CEO dictatorship” shows how detached modern thinking is from reality. His core claim: any organization that seeks to accomplish something is most efficient under a single leader.
He cited the iPhone as an example: the box reads “Designed by Apple in California”—a product of Apple (a “monarchy-like corporation”) and China (a “monarchy-like state”). By contrast, democratic entities like the California government could never produce such innovation.
Capitalism, he said, is simply a collection of “small monarchies (firms).” For most of history, monarchy was humanity’s standard governance form; the past 250 years of democracy are a fragile anomaly now collapsing. Comparing safety in Shanghai versus New York, Yarvin concluded that a return to CEO dictatorship is the realistic, normal path.
[Weyl] “History and data prove democracy’s superiority.”
Weyl acknowledged Yarvin’s influence but rebutted with evidence: Studies show democracies outperform dictatorships in growth, stability, and living standards. Countries democratizing see incomes rise ~20% long-term. Success stories like Japan, India, and Botswana were achieved under democracy; dictatorships like North Korea and Iran produced disaster.
As for CEO-style leaders, he cited Elon Musk as a cautionary tale of absolute power corrupting judgment, calling his leadership a “murderous clown show.” He added that Microsoft’s success under Satya Nadella came from decentralization and transparency—not iron-fisted rule—undercutting Yarvin’s corporate analogy from the inside.
Key Issues and Clashes
Can the corporate model be applied to the state?
Yarvin: Great firms (Apple, Google) were all created by powerful founders. States are large organizations and should follow the same clear chain of command. He derided modern Microsoft as a “big co”—bureaucratic and inefficient, like government.
Weyl: Cited Satya Nadella’s decentralizing reforms, which multiplied Microsoft’s value ~20×. The larger the organization, the more success depends on distributed power and feedback, not dictatorship.
The role of citizens under dictatorship
Yarvin: Citizens would be “subjects.” In reality, voters already lack influence—he only acknowledges the truth. Immigration policy proves decisions are made regardless of public will.
Weyl: Quoted Yarvin’s writings about seizing billionaires’ wealth and building facilities for “universal solitary confinement” to “reprocess” welfare recipients—sparking outrage. Yarvin defended this as a rescue idea for those in poor conditions, but the audience reacted sharply.
Is the rule of law obsolete?
Yarvin: “The rule of law is outdated.” If judges interpret laws above a ruler, it creates “imperium in imperio”—two powers in one state. True sovereignty requires power beyond law. He also called for dismantling media like The New York Times and placing all law enforcement under the president within a week of taking office.
Weyl: Warned this is totalitarianism, destroying all checks and balances. Quoting the maxim, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” he stressed that unchecked leaders endanger citizens’ rights and lives.
What does history support?
Yarvin: Idealizes “enlightened monarchs” like Frederick the Great, treating their countries as assets to improve.
Weyl: Cited the Roman Empire, where ~75% of emperors died violently, as evidence of dictatorship’s instability. He also pointed to monarchs who forced mass conversions and executions, showing despotism’s danger.
Yarvin: Claimed world wars happened in “the democratic era,” unlike smaller monarchic wars.
Weyl: Countered with data showing the post-WWII spread of democracy coincided with the least violent era in human history.
Audience Q&A Highlights
El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele
Question: Doesn’t Bukele’s crime-crackdown success support Yarvin?
Weyl: Acknowledged improved security but warned of secret gang deals. Rare cases (like Chile) exist, but far more dictatorships led nations to ruin.
Yarvin: Said Bukele succeeded because he resisted U.S. interference. Most failed dictatorships were destroyed as enemies of global democratic crusades.
Does the Bill of Rights matter?
Yarvin: Called it a good principle but said courts are politicized, so “the entire system of rule of law is an anachronism.” This revealed his aim to dismantle U.S. governance from its roots.
Weyl: Thanked him for clarifying his radicalism, underscoring its dangers to the audience.
Can fair elections exist?
Yarvin: Declared, “There has never been a free and fair election.” All are “managed democracies,” manipulated by elites. Even FDR’s disability was hidden from voters. Therefore, his system is not a downgrade from reality.
Closing Arguments
[Yarvin] “Monarchy’s effectiveness, from Rome to Bukele.”
Cited Rome’s fall: not caused by dictators, but by inefficiency compared to military hierarchy. Pompey crushed Mediterranean piracy in 3 months when given absolute authority, unlike years of republican failure. Bukele today shows the same. Without monarchy, Rome would have been destroyed by Gauls; without change, America too will fall.
[Weyl] “This is a battle for America’s soul.”
Invoked Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: government of, by, for the people is under threat. Branded Yarvin’s vision as born of cynicism and despair. America never yielded to slavers or totalitarians, and he vowed his generation would not surrender that legacy.
To his daughters watching at home, he pledged: “If ever told to kneel before a master, may you grow with the courage and pride to spit in his eye. I will rebuild this republic for you.”
Conclusion: A Clash of Visions for the Future of Governance
This debate, under the extreme theme of “CEO dictatorship,” laid bare Americans’ frustrations with governance and the starkly opposing prescriptions:
Yarvin: A radical vision of destruction and rebirth through centralized power, seeing democracy as a broken bubble.
Weyl: A hopeful vision of imperfect democracy, improvable through dialogue and innovation.
Ultimately, the debate posed not just which system is superior, but how America defines its identity and its future.
Typical false dichotomy from the legacy media. The United States was never meant to be a democracy. Indeed, the founders were skeptical of democracy and built in many safeguards against it, most of which have been chipped away over the decades. On the other side of the question, no serious person is suggesting the US could or would ever become a monarchy. Curtis Yarvin is not a serious person.
Furthermore, the NYT has no interest in an honest discussion. Instead, the point is to set up a straw man using Yarvin so it can be ceremoniously knocked down by a regime operative. This is simply regime propaganda, and not very good propaganda at that.
History tells us the big problem with monarchy is succession. The original hard man who kills his enemies, seizes power, and makes himself king can rule with an iron fist – especially if that iron fist is encased in a velvet glove and the king gives special attention to the well-being of his citizens. However, the probability is that the offspring of that powerful ruler will be deluded fops, unaware of what it took their father or grandfather to establish the monarchy. Sooner or later, the kingship devolves on an idiot or a child, and the self-serving bureaucrats & courtiers take over – until the next hard man arises. Very messy!
The great advantage of “democracy” or “democratic republicanism” is that the succession is in principle decided by merit, independent of lineage. But now we see the phenomenon of “Senator” Lisa Murkowski inheriting her father’s seat in Alaska, or Hillary! Clinton almost becoming President based solely on who she married, or Joey Biden being “elected” President when he was incapable of finding his way to the nearest ice cream shop without a retinue to guide him.
It seems that modern universal suffrage “democracy” is no better at providing for succession than the old monarchial system. But this is not even a permitted topic of discussion in polite circles.
This is not accurate, historically or biologically. Intelligence and personality traits are highly heritable. The odds of getting a good ruler from the aristocracy are much better than some rando from the population at large. In a democracy, less so for a republic, the ruler is the best liar. The successful candidate has to be the best persuader — by any means necessary, including lying. Competence at campaigning is almost uncorrelated with competence at governing. The Athenians recognized this over two millennia ago. Need I remind you who won the Peloponnesian War? Democracy does not imply meritocracy. It’s almost the opposite.
The greater problem of succession in a monarchy is that there are always pretenders who would not hesitate to kill rivals. Being a king or the child of a king was a very risky job. There is a risk of violence at succession or even during the reign. Democracy tends to have a smoother time of it.
The current state of Our Democracy is that the people vote and the ruling class often does the opposite. Nobody voted for mass immigration of Third-World criminals but we got it anyway. Thus, even on the most basic level, democracy fails to deliver on its promise. When the king screws you over, at least you know who to blame.
And we were demoted in the process, as illegal aliens’ rights - those the state bestows - are here de facto superior to those of citizens. In England, it’s even worse - illegals’ rights are superior de jure. And the king there, apparently supports this in full wokeness.
Have you read about the history of Europe under its many royal families? There are lots of examples of following generations of rulers falling short of the levels set by their ancestors.
While statistically intelligence and personality traits may be highly heritable, when it comes to the sons & daughters of royal families we are not talking about a statistical probability – we are talking about the actual characteristics of a single individual … which as you well know can lie anywhere on that statistical distribution, from super-good (eg Alexander the Great exceeding the high level set by his father Philip) to imbecilic (too many to mention).
However, none of that alters the indisputable truth – universal suffrage “democracy” is failing in front of our eyes, in part because of its failure to select adequate leaders, and we are all going to pay a nasty price for that.
Yes I have. And a great example is Alfred the Great of Wessex, who had the dream of uniting the Saxons in England. His son, Edward the Elder, succeeded him and advanced his father’s vision. Alfred’s daughter, Aethelflaed, succeeded her husband to become Lady of Mercia. Edward’s son, Aethelstan, finally realized Alfred’s vision, becoming the first king of England. He had no issue, which meant he was succeeded by his half-brother Edmund. This represents a relatively smooth succession of leaders who have a string of accomplishments to their names. They had a vision for their country that went well beyond the length of an election cycle. Compare that with people like Clinton, Obama, the Bushes, and especially Joe Biden.
Yeah, so let’s compare. Look at the individuals named above. Wanna talk about idiot kings? How about the democratically elected Joe Biden? There’s your “meritocracy” of democracy. There were plenty of mediocrities in the 19th century too. Remember the great accomplishments of John Tyler and Millard Fillmore? Pierce? Arthur? Most people wouldn’t even recognize those names.
There are bad leaders in all systems. It is not valid to compare monarchy to an ideal, nonexistent system that only produces wise, competent, and benevolent leaders. It is not clear to me that the democracy or republic has a better track record than monarchy.
As others have pointed out, monarchs have a greater investment in the future than democratic leaders because the former expect their progeny to continue to lead. This is brought into especially sharp focus when these leaders are childless, as many of the European ‘leaders’ are. Speaking of which, do you really want to put up Macron or Starmer forward as great leaders? Or my favorite, Mutti Merkel.
Arguably, the most successful leader of the later 20th Century was the late Sheik Zayed of Abu Dhabi – successful in terms of doing good for his people and uplifting his society. The comparison with his contemporary Saddam Hussein is quite dramatic.
Monarchs can be good – no question about that. Still, it is interesting that one has to dig very deep into pre-English history to find a succession of above average monarchs. It is not at all difficult throughout the long histories of many lands to find competent leaders being replaced by incompetents.
We are in agreement that “democratically electing” leaders is no more reliable a source of good leadership than the accident of birth. The question for us today is – What can we do to improve the odds?
My suggestion would be to outlaw “factions” (political parties), drastically limit the franchise, and then have those voters with skin in the game work through a genuine Electoral College type of procedure where a group of trusted individuals from across the country selects a respected individual from the entire citizen body.
Not really. I just picked that era because it is one I happen to be reading about now. Your statement would require validation by reviewing ten centuries of Saxon/Norman history. I’m not enough of a scholar of English history to do that.
Sorry but I don’t think there is a simple, or even complicated, fix. Democracy always seems to degenerate by broadening the franchise until most voters have little or no skin in the game. It has happened before and will happen again. Civilizations — monarchies, democracies, whatever — are cyclical and they burn to the ground before (maybe) rising again. It’s gonna get a lot worse before it gets better.
Unfortunately that is a concise statement of reality.
And it only gets better after a lot of suffering. I keep returning to the historical example of the leaders of then-world-leading China inflicting stupidity upon their country in the 1400s; it took half a millennium – more than 20 human generations – to recover. That is what history suggests might lie ahead for us in the benighted West.
the lack of, senators and congressmen ( and congresswomen), they should be limited to three terms
the restrictions of, presidents should be given a SIX or EIGHT year term, They can either ruin the country totally in that time of save it in that time. The two terms would still apply. Four years is not enough. ( IE: two more years of the previous administration may have really crippled our country.)
That gets me, the most important office is restricted where, as the politicians for life, well they don’t really do a lot for their constituents, but, seemingly more for themselves along party lines yet can be a politician for life. A mini-king, (LOL I had a typo and typed “kink” first time through.), or a duke if you want to call them that.
Better than term limits – a simple prohibition preventing individuals holding ANY elected office from running for ANY elective office, including the one they currently occupy.
The rationale is that the elected individual is taking tax-payer money to fulfill the obligations of that office. She does not have time to run for election while performing her duties for the citizenry.
Individuals could have multiple terms in office in multiple different elected positions – but not consecutively. Along with strengthened automatic anti-corruption probes of every elected office-holder and full public disclosure of the elected individual’s personal finances for some years after the end of her term, this would go a long way to eliminating the career politician who has done so much harm to the country.
Once one accepts that civilization is a state of perpetual war, group integrity trumps individual integrity. “War of All against All” applies only in that condition, Hobbes’s travesty notwithstanding. His illusion of peace within leviathan’s dominion merely denies the implied state of war.
Once one accepts civilization as “The way things are” any vacuum of a declared enemy will be filled one way or another. So what’s it going to be? A war of all against all or a war of life against lifelessness?
