If everyone runs their own Tor exit node, including unknowingly every dumb Windows and Mac user out there, then malware writers (the NSA?) would have a field day writing bad stuff that attacks and takes advantage of a very large number of exit nodes. So which is better: fewer exit nodes but a few known bad ones as it is now, or shitloads of exit nodes where the vast majority cannot be trusted?
In my mind this is not interesting but rather bordering flamebait. How is what you propose any different than what exists now? Malware writers are having a field day right now with all of the unsecured exit nodes. ( yes you are an exit node on the internet, regardless if you are a tor exit node ) So the true question is would you rather have a greater possibility of retaining your privacy, or just keep living in a deluded fantasy where you think you have any semblance of privacy when you don't? Don't be the one to drink the cool-aid, it never turns out good for that person.
C code without any APIs can't exploit a potato. It isn't inherently able to talk to the kernel.
How does not being able to make french fries relate to not being able to make popcorn? And how does this make the code safer? (Even if you thought it was cheesy it is still funny.)
"There... I've run rings 'round you logically" -- Monty Python's Flying Circus