This has been a tricky one for me to talk about. I'm sure others have made similar proposals before—anarchists, maybe—but I haven't heard anyone push it to the logical conclusion I'm thinking about.
The biggest problem we have—maybe the totality of our problems (if we accept a humanity)—is the number one person.
The American contradiction
Here's what I keep coming back to: how does a country revolt against a king and then... elect another king?
America fought a bloody war against monarchy. People died to escape the tyranny of one person ruling over everyone else. Then what’d they do? They created the presidency.
They called it something different, sure. They added checks and balances, no doubt. But they still installed one person at the top with the power to preside over everyone else. That’s absurd.
Did they really think the person they elected would be saner than the one who claimed royal blood? That democracy somehow makes absolute power less dangerous?
For maybe the first 250 years, no president really tested that trust. There seemed to be an unwritten understanding about limits. But then you get one stupid prick who realizes: this system actually did install a king. It just called it presidency.
The three-branch illusion
We tell ourselves we have separation of powers. Three branches of government. Checks and balances.
But look closer. The legislative arm makes laws. The judicial arm interprets them. And then you have the so-called executive branch—which is just... the government. The real power.
One person calling the shots.
One person who can threaten the world with tariffs, birthright citizenship changes, whatever comes into their head.
One person whose decisions affect millions, billions, based on their personal whims and the size of their ego.
Every country copied both
Nigeria. Almost every democracy that followed the American model. We all copied the same system—the model and the mistake.
We all decided to trust that one person at the top would somehow do the right thing. That they'd use power responsibly just because we elected them instead of inheriting the throne.
How's that working out?
It should end at the house
Here's the proposition: government should end at the house. One house. No presidency. No executive branch. No senate. Senate? No, no "supreme" anything.
Just representatives. Debating. Voting. Making decisions collectively.
When the house sits and debates legislation—rules that keep society in order and sustainable—it's not one person's opinion. It might start as someone's suggestion, but it gets adopted by the house. Everyone votes for what's good for society, not what gains them popularity or pleases their donors.
No number one person calling the shots.
Rotating leadership, maybe. Someone has to run meetings. But not a permanent speaker who becomes another mini-king.
What about the courts?
The courts follow the house. Not some "supreme" court with lifetime appointments, swinging between conservative and liberal based on who dies when.
What the hell is "supreme" anyway? If you mean the final word, then make it accountable to the people through their representatives. Not nine people in robes making decisions for 300 million based on their personal political philosophies.
This isn't about individuals
The moment you put one person at the top, it becomes about that person. Their judgment. Their character. Their ability to resist the corruption that comes with absolute power.
That's insane. No single human should have that much control over other people's lives. No matter how they got there. No matter how good their intentions.
Most companies figured this out
Even in business—where you'd expect more hierarchy—the successful companies aren't one-person shows. The CEO might be the face, but decisions get made by teams. Professionals at every level contribute without just saying "yes sir" to the person at the top.
If private companies can figure out how to operate without kings, why can't governments? Wait, governments? There should be none, fuck it! Representatives (ministers of the house). That’s all.
The change we need
Stop electing kings. Stop calling them presidents.
No executive branch. No supreme courts. One house with rotating leadership.
A house that actually represents the people—all the people, not just the loudest or richest or most connected.
I know this sounds radical. But what's radical is continuing to trust one person with power over millions of others. What's radical is copying a system that we know produces tyrants and then acting surprised when it produces tyrants. Nigeria, hello!
We've copied both the model and the mistake. And we're all going to suffer for it until we change.
I'll build on this. Because any sound person can see the point: if you want real change, you've got to ditch the number one person.
All of them. None of them.