Raw LLM Responses

I would agree with the assessment that this system would be far and above the toxic, corrupt kind of democracy most first world countries enjoy today. The most attractive aspect of this system is it's apparently ability to minimize corruption via randomness. I think this is promising, but this seems to be like a "let's cut our losses" approach when perhaps we can search for something better. Critiques: Perhaps the most significant critique is defining the scope of the government in this model: how do you do it? Are you going to give ordinary citizens the nuclear launch codes? Brief ordinary citizens on our most clandestine security measures and advanced military intel just to release them back into the world a few years later? In WW2, Japanese internment camps were constructed and Japanese citizens were shipped out to them because our government was fearful of an uprising - is the is the kind of power you would give our parliament at the drop of a hat? I would argue that this random government should have a limited scope - and should *lead* - not force it's citizens to take actions. But then again sometimes force is necessary: a large highway may need to be constructed through an existing neighborhood that would provide significant benefits to all those around it. It is difficult to separate the beneficial instances from the harmful. I would draw this argument further to say that *if maintaining a limited government is possible, it doesn't matter who is in power - random or otherwise.* There is much philosophical work on this principle - I would then argue that limited government is the principle doing the work for us - not sortion. Further critiques: 2. In line with the argument in favor of limited government, the principle of federalism needs to be acknowledged here. Why the obsession with trying to get one *large* government correct - this seems a monumental task to accomplish. Why not let hundreds of tiny governments do what they think is best a