Sure, but I don't think it's even that controversial or untested an idea. I think this is pretty common in startups, but they'd call it a "flat org-chart." It's generally seen as unacceptable to have the executive and treasurer be the same person, even in very vertical organizations. It's my observation that, if you leave people to their own devices to perform a task with a narrow scope, they pretty much form a horizontal organization where they make decisions by consensus, because that's what makes the most sense to them.

That being said, I do have a lot of ideas about this, which I am hoping to test by starting a company when I have the means to do so, and if you'd like to fund me, my email is in my bio. (/s)

Are you sure? Consider what happens when a CEO is suddenly unable to function. What happens to company property, intellectual property, notes, etc. that are in their possession? Do they magically vanish? Or do you try to recover them? Maybe the CEO's corporate laptop will show up on ebay with files intact. Is that an optimal outcome? What if the person lives alone? At what point is law enforcement a.k.a. "the gubment" involvement okay with you?

I don't really understand where this comment is coming from, I think you've maybe misinterpreted me; I'm not trying to say there is never an appropriate role for government, I'm saying not to call the cops on Internet strangers, and that accountability you proactively build into the structure of your organization is going to work much better than going through the legal system. But sure, it's okay for law enforcement to let you into the empty house of the late CEO, and if a stolen laptop shows up on eBay, it should be returned to you if possible. (But it's going to go a lot smoother for you if you use full disk encryption so that the stolen laptop can't be used to steal your files, and if you've backed them up to a company drive so you never lose access - you're not going to want to rely on law enforcement to give you these guarantees post hoc, and they're not going to be able to deliver on that most of the time.)

Do we actually disagree? The way you kinda derisively said "the gubment", and how previously you said I had "nice sentiments", makes me think maybe you don't like how I've expressed myself or that I'm reminding you of other ideas you don't like?

I'm just trying to explain why "don't call the cops on internet strangers" is too hardline of an argument for the real world, because everyone is a bit of an internet stranger.

I think if you read my comments in the sibling thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33849719 & the following 3 responses I make), which I view as the main part of my argument, you'll find nuance there & that I don't take a hardline position (I present a case & urge people to consider it, I don't prescribe any particular action). I was tired of explaining myself in this part of the thread & taking is as read that people had read that part of the conversation, but I should've tried harder to preserve the nuance. And I forget sometimes that other people's view in the UI looks very different from mine, so while from my perspective these comments were visually emphasized by being sorted higher, that probably wasn't the case for you.

I doubt you'll agree with me after reading those either, but I think you'll find it isn't a hardline stance.