Sorry but what you&#x27;re suggesting basically just amounts to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic&#x27;s deck.<p>Besides, it&#x27;s been &quot;tried&quot; already, in this form: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Separation_of_powers" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Separation_of_powers</a> - and by now it&#x27;s clear how much that helped, right?<p>In reality, &quot;the separation of powers&quot; was just a bullshit PR-distraction, meant to give us a false sense of security, to alleviate the nagging subconscious awareness that the idea that we live in a system that benefits <i>us</i> just makes no sense whatsoever.<p>Regardless of how parts of the government are ostensibly &quot;separated&quot; or &quot;firewalled&quot;, they&#x27;re still all part of the same overall organization: the government.<p>There&#x27;s no way to arrange an all-encompassing &quot;authority of coercion&quot; in a way that benefits the people being coerced. Another way to look at it is that forcefully taking people&#x27;s money does <i>not</i> benefit whoever&#x27;s money is taken. It benefits the takers.<p>The exploiters need the masses of the exploited to be blind to the exploitation, because otherwise it would come to an end, and that&#x27;s why we find the idea of &quot;the separation of powers&quot; floating around, along with &quot;the social contract&quot; and &quot;consent of the governed&quot; and so on.