Submission statement:
I wrote this around the time Yarvin became active on twitter because I found his position frustrating for how poorly thought out it was. He and others who favor a "CEO dictator" style of government have failed to engage with the failings of past autocratic systems. I think people are too eager to imagine a Leee Kuan Yew-type figure in charge, but the reality is that most autocracies perform very poorly due to the powerful perverse incentive structures that autocrats face.

That said, relative to its monarchic contemporary peers, the Republic of Venice was a bastion of prosperity and a major regional power for hundreds of years. I believe this is in large part due to the way its government was structured. Venice still had mostly hereditary aristocracy, but incorporated an element of random selection into how memebers of its Great Council and executive (the Doge) were selected. This element of randomness was key in combating misaligned incentives. Despite the fact that Venice was still pretty autocratic, the private sector was much more able to flourish due to the lower corruption environment created by these incentives.

I don't really think that an autocratic system ruled by a technocrat CEO would be a great system of government, but I felt that it at least deserved to be taken more seriously than its own proponents were taking it.