Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator?

What? No. What are you even saying?

A few months ago, someone invited me to a debate between our foremost pro-dictatorship philosopher, Curtis Yarvin, and E. Glen Weyl, whom I don’t know much about, but he seems to be a pretty basic leftist has some interesting ideas on decentralized voting. Yesterday, I attended that debate, and this post is my hastily written review.

Conveniently located about 20 minutes from my apartment, Racket NYC is a music venue in Chelsea that, for our purposes, was converted to a debate stage. This event was hosted by Open To Debate, a podcast that hosts debates on controversial topics like “Is It Time for the Catholic Church to Ordain Women as Deacons?” or Two Conservatives Debate: Is the Big, Beautiful Bill A Disaster? I had never heard of them before this specific debate. Still, it seems like they’re a legitimate organization without significant political bias, and given the subject of today’s debate, I was thinking it would at the very least be interesting.

Upon arrival, I was subject to a metal detector, which went off multiple times on my phone, wallet, and keys, but I wasn’t subject to any actual search of what set off that detector. I guess I didn’t look threatening enough, or was dressed too nicely to be an assassin set on killing Yarvin. Either that or the security was pretty lazy.

Up a flight of stairs, and I reach the venue. Picture an EDM stage with cool blue lights, two chairs, and a podium in the middle. It looks like it seats about 250 people, and their website said tickets were sold out, so this was clearly not some college debate between insignificant people. There were three rows of reserved media seating in the front, but thinking no one would stop me if I sat there anyway, I moved to one of the front rows and sat down with a better view of the action.

About 45 minutes early, I fortunately had a lot of time to observe the other attendees. There were clearly two visually distinct groups. Young and middle-aged white men with somewhat shabby attire, and well-dressed older men and women, as well as some very liberal-looking students, who had probably come from the more general Open To Debate events, or to protest Yarvin specifically. Considering the topic was about whether or not the US should have a CEO Dictator, and not whether we should have democratic socialism, it’s no surprise that this attracted more attendees there for Yarvin than the other guy. After all, almost no one really needs to be told why the US doesn’t need a CEO Dictator any more than we need to be told why the US doesn’t need a nuclear war. The burden of proof is on Yarvin, given the absurdity (or at least oddity) of his beliefs, so most people were there for him.

About half an hour before the debate, Yarvin walked by. I stared him down, determined to gauge his vibe. A slight paunch, wearing jeans, a button-up shirt, and a Collarless Grey Jacket (which, for some reason, reminded me of the Mao Suit, I guess because of the Mandarin Collar), he didn’t really leave much of an impression. If I walked by him on the street, I don’t think I would have looked twice. The Ozempic must be working, though, since he slimmed down a lot from a previous debate with Richard Hanania, which he lost only because he was too fat.

“I destroyed him in almost every way,” Yarvin said, nudging a tomato with his fork. “But he had one huge advantage, which was that I was fat and he was not.”
- Curtis Yarvin’s Plot Against America

Contrast this to his opponent, E. Glen Weyl, who was perhaps the best-dressed person at the debate. I saw him walking around talking to people well ahead of time, and despite not knowing what he looked like or who he was, he immediately stood out to me. His suit was a perfectly wrinkle-free navy; he had a silk red tie, and even an American flag pin. Reminiscent of a politician, despite not knowing he was the other debater, I wasn’t at all surprised when he walked on stage.

In the meantime, Yarvin was swarmed by a group of young men behind me, but fortunately, within earshot, so I could eavesdrop on their conversation. Of course, the conversation drifted to WW2 history, as anyone arguing for a CEO Dictatorship necessarily must be a history nerd. Apparently, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a trap set for Germany (as opposed to the sincere intentions of Hitler), in a semi-apologetic explanation of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. Yarvin is great at bending the historical narrative to fit his purposes (as we’ll find out later).

At this point, it’s worth pointing out his voice. It’s extremely nasal, punctuated by “You know’s”, “Uhhhs”, and “Ummms”, giving the opposite impression you would get from his writing, which is extremely verbose and almost poetic. When he writes, he does so with a level of confidence and authority that I am not surprised people buy into his philosophy. When he speaks, I’m left with the opposite impression. This is a debate of ideas, not of vibes, though, so that’s enough about that.

Yarvin must have walked away or stopped talking, as I could no longer hear his signature nasal drawl. Fortunately, there were other conversations nearby that I could listen to between attendees. Behind me, a recently unemployed hardware technician from Florida was telling the quiet software engineer beside him about his Startup. He came to New York to raise money, but hasn’t had much luck yet. His vision is to build actuators for the Department of Defense, whatever that means, so if you’re looking for a hot startup to invest in, I recommend you track him down. He was quite a rare specimen in other ways, as he was a major proponent of Urbit, Yarvin’s failed internet alternative startup, believing it to be one of the most impressive technical feats ever accomplished. Despite its low user base, the unemployed Floridian assures his seat neighbor that Urbit is prioritizing quality over quantity, so it’s sure to take off any moment.

I’ve tried Urbit (and may write about my experiences another time), and it’s honestly pretty bad. It’s basically a message board for right-wing trolls, and not even an especially active one. Its whole pitch is that you can use decentralized hardware to host and join servers, but everyone is just using the software provided by Urbit on their regular computers instead (since that’s way too much work for just a message board). What you’re left with is a more complicated Reddit for right-wing weirdoes.

To my left are three clearly quite liberal young women (or men, or they/them. I can’t assume someone’s gender when I can’t tell their gender) who were talking with an older bearded man, probably their professor. I could immediately tell they were there to protest Yarvin, and out of everyone I had seen, they were most likely to stand up and interrupt the debate (foreshadowing...). I couldn’t hear exactly what was being said, but it was something about Fascism, how NYC is in danger, and he shouldn’t be allowed to be there.

But the time for idle chat is over, as the debate moderator John Donvan takes the stage and instructs us on how these debates go. Our role as the audience is to let the podcast listeners know we’re there, so we will be asked to ‘Please Clap’ at various points during the debate. This helps the podcast audience be part of the experience with us. The forced clapping is somewhat cringey, but it reminded me of the scene below from Shrek, so I resolved myself to be a loyal subject and follow the prompts.

Yarvin: Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.

Moderator: Holding up a sign: *Applause*

With the podcast started, our moderator John introduces Curtis Yarvin as one of the most influential philosophers on the new right. Rather than explain who he is myself, I’ll let John do it for me:

Elon Musk reportedly consulted with him on the formation of a new political party. He's also been cited admiringly by the current US vice president JD Vance. His argument of record is that the American system of governance, our Republic that we consider to be in many aspects democratic or guided by democratic values has failed and that it's time for a form of dictatorship as the best solution for what ails the American body politic.

Next comes his opponent, E. Glen Weyl, which I had never heard of before but the title of his book; Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society should tell you more than enough to understand what he’s all about. What I found odd is that he brought a pink fuzzy binder with a smiley face on it on stage with him, which contrasted sharply with his Republican Senator Intern Outfit (Flag Pin Included).

I’m pretty sure this is the exact thing he brought on stage. You can buy one too for $16.

Not off to a great start on Weyl’s side, but maybe the pink fuzzy smiley binder is a family heirloom, so I’m not going to judge. We were subject to the introduction of both parties, first Yarvin, essentially claiming that democracy has not been working, and that every functioning large entity that Yarvin has observed (mostly in the Silicon Valley startup world) has relied on hierarchical top-down control, usually lacking any democratic element (other than the oligarchy of shareholders expressing their views with the market price of a stock). To allow Yarvin to sum it up:

Well, where [there] is any endeavor requiring he cooperation of a large or even small number of people? And the question is, should this group of people who are trying to get something done be coordinated by a single central group (uh) organization or a central structure? The answer is almost always yes.

Weyl started with some agreement about the current state of democracy, but his diagnosis was not to do with a failure of the system (although he admitted there were many failures), but that the major problems were largely due to anti-democrats like Yarvin. I’ll let him speak for himself:

I have to say that the easy approach (uh) to confronting someone who has called for most Americans to be put in solitary confinement and for our billionaires to be expropriated would be moral scorn. (Bolded for emphasis) But I think confronting it in that way would be a disservice to all the people who found his arguments so persuasive. And so instead, I want to meet him on the ground that he stands on. The grounds he just occupied of historical experience because (um) as an economist and political scientist, if there's anything that I've learned from study after study, it's how consistently democracies outperform autocracies…

Yarvin drank all his water in the first five minutes. After that repeatedly “drank” from his empty cup only to be reminded that it was empty. Weyl on the other hand paced himself the entire time. +1 Point for Weyl.

After the intros we were treated to our liberal friends on my left walking up in front of the stage with a banner and a chant.

Get this Fascist off the stage, we don’t want him to debate!
- The Open To Debate Protestors

Apparently Yarvin isn’t welcome in NYC, and the gestapo is taking people off the streets (to which our Unemployed Floridian friend shouted: “GOOD!” Classic.).

We got to observe three unique strategies in dealing with the protestors. Yarvin just sat there, Weyl angrily told them to leave, and John walked to the front of the stage to shoe them away like a flock of pigeons. None of this worked, so a few security guards weighing 250+ pounds came by and made short order of the protestors. This is when the professor really started screaming and it looked like he was about to burst into tears as he and the other protestors were escorted out of the venue. I don’t know what their intentions were here, but it honestly looked quite pathetic from where I was sitting and made me slightly more favorable to Yarvin. I’ve gone from strongly opposed to now merely opposed thanks to them.

I suspect Open To Debate knew these people were going to protest. I’m not sure how they could have got their banner through security otherwise. But controversy sells, and so long as they’re not going to actively try and kill Yarvin, a bit of an interruption and protest does nothing but make their podcast more interesting. If this is the case, I am impressed by the team’s foresight and ability to utilize controversy.

I think there’s the assumption among some people that if you try to protest in a place you’re not allowed to protest, then are escorted out, you’ll become somewhat of a martyr, or at least attract attention to what it is you’re all about. I think this is pretty foolish, because obviously you shouldn’t be allowed to shout and chant in a private debate. But it worked for Brad Lander so who am I to say otherwise.

Anyway, John thanked the protestors for purchasing tickets and we were back to the races. Yarvin, as apparently is usual in these debates did most of the talking for the remaining hour. His actual beliefs are pretty esoteric and would require an immense amount of verbose explanation to even begin to understand the concepts, so in the span of an hour we’re only getting the condensed version.

Rather than focusing on the actual topic; should the US be ruled be a CEO dictator, he tended to focus in on specific concepts or ideas within the political debate more generally. How much value did Weyl contribute at Microsoft? Were centralized monarchies actually better for the people living under them? Etc.

This is where Weyl made a major mistake. In trying to discredit Yarvin by showing the audience the sheer insanity of his ideas (easy low hanging fruit given how insane Yarvin’s ideas actually are), he floundered and made himself look pretty lame.

He wanted to bring up Yarvin’s idea of putting all those living off the state’s resources in solitary confinement so as to minimize their needs and prevent them from harming economically productive society. He boiled it down to “You want to put all the poor people in solitary confinement” which, when fact checked by John (essentially asking Yarvin if it was true) he said “No.” Powerful stuff.

Fortunately Weyl had come prepared. In his pink binder I told you about earlier (I guess it was a good idea for him to bring it after all) he had about 10 pages of quotes from Yarvin and insisted on quoting him. Unfortunately, he seemed to have forgotten exactly where he had this specific quote, meaning he was left fumbling around for 30 seconds flipping over his papers awkwardly. If being fat lost Yarvin the debate previously, this lost Weyl the debate here. He lost the momentum, and looked quite unprepared. This fumbling was cut from the video of the debate.

One thing to understand about Yarvin is that he’s intentionally and self-admittedly provocative. When he talks about putting poor people in solitary confinement, what he’s actually saying is that those who don’t contribute to society should be separated from it and given a minimum quality of life. Unless you’re plugged into the part of the internet that tries to understand this stuff, you just wouldn’t get it. Here’s the relevant quote Weyl was looking for:

A virtualized human is in permanent solitary confinement, waxed like a bee larva into a cell which is sealed except for emergencies. This would drive him insane, except that the cell contains an immersive virtual-reality interface which allows him to experience a rich, fulfilling life in a completely imaginary world.

Patchwork Chapter 2

This is intentionally provocative, like most of Yarvin’s writings. Quoting his insane ideas in this way is pointless, because he clearly can’t mean this literally (the technology for this doesn’t exist now, and it didn’t exist 2 decades ago when he wrote this).

One thing I’d like to mention before concluding is the questions. Here’s one by Dylan:

Hi, I'm Dylan. Uh, this is a question for Mr. Yarvin. Uh, so I'm building off of your earlier uh you earlier brought up the company's uh Google and Microsoft as these sort of degenerated, one might say, uh, forms of bureaucratic centralism. And uh I thought you know in in opposition to bureaucratic centralism we might say a Troskyist would believe in permanent revolution. And how do you approach the notion of absolute power without falling into this degenerated form of bureaucratic centralism? like how is it possible for you to on the one hand maintain this uh stasis in form while at the same time retaining the energy of a startup?

Sir, this is a Wendy’s.

More seriously, the questions didn’t really focus on anything that was said during the debate, but it was interesting to see the different people speak either way. You can even see me in the background of some of these question segments of the video, so if you can figure out who I am, please don’t dox me.

Weyl, in a fit of absolute genius, saw the only woman in the audience who had a question. Picked her out, interrupted Yarvin saying:

Weyl: There's a woman over there.

John: You wanted a woman. All right, that looks like one. All right, we're going to extend the [time]. I hope this is a great question.

And it was a great question indeed. For she, not expecting to be called on, quickly pulled out her phone and I am 99% sure she asked ChatGPT. Unfortunately the video recording cut out about 60 seconds of absolute nonsense leaving only:

Genuinely and conceptually, how can how can to totalitarianism be effective when when that's not what humans are? It's not unified.

So basically there were no good questions asked, but that isn’t surprising given the difficulty of the topic and the meandering nature of the debate.

Conclusion:

There was of course, no coherent conclusion to the debate, but I don’t blame either of the guests. Clearly the question of Should the US be run by a CEO Dictator? is a very bad one.

For Yarvin the answer is “Yes, here’s a million words I’ve written explaining my view over multiple decades.”

For literally everyone else the reaction is “What the hell are you talking about? No? Are you being serious?”

Whether or not the US should be ruled by a CEO dictator is not something that can be debated in the span of an hour, since it’s such a niche idea almost no one who disagrees would be informed enough to debate (possibly Scott Alexander), or even know anything about at all.

The onus is on Yarvin to actually advocate for his idea in a coherent way, but to do that in even the least level of rigor would take significantly more time than was available for the debate. So we’re left in this situation where the audience, and probably the other debater doesn’t really have an understanding of what Yarvin is advocating for. Without a coherent idea to latch onto and disagree with, Weyl was left flailing in different directions, with both him and Yarvin talking past each other. No real understanding was gained.

I think in general that super niche topics can’t be effectively debated in this format. When one side has to spend hours explaining their views and justifications before understanding can be gained in the audience, then there isn’t enough mutual understanding to be debated upon in the public sphere. We might as well have a historian debate with me whether the Voynich Manuscript was originally written in Turkish, which, while quite interesting (this is another one of my secret interests) would require quite a lot of background information before any listener could come to understand what it is we’re even talking about.

So overall, I think Yarvin “Won” this debate, if only because of the lame protestors, Weyl’s pink binder and his awkward search for a quote from Yarvin. Weyl “Won” the debate, if only because Yarvin’s ideas are blatantly stupid and he deliberately misinterprets history to justify them. That was true before the debate though, so I think we’re left in the exact same position as we started.

In short, to answer Should the US have a CEO Dictator? I think the only appropriate answer is “What? No. What the hell are you even talking about?”