The first part is here.
There are very many matters that need to be regulated by independent international authorities, most obviously the international movement of money. Trafficking in money is worth more than the sum of all other international trading. Money makes money without being involved in any productive process. Many economists believe that some of the worst features of this situation could be removed by imposing a very small tax on such transactions. But it is difficult for any state to do so in the absence of any international authority in the matter. Choosing the personnel of a competent, independent and recognised authority by lot from a pool of nominees, subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, is a key element in setting up the required kind of body. However, different procedures will be needed in different contexts.
One problem with simple sortition is that in situations where a large relatively homogeneous majority is accompanied by a number of differing minorities a sample that simply reproduces their numerical distribution may lead to a decision pattern that is very unfair to the minorities. The problem is distressingly familiar. Ultimately, reducing its salience is a matter of breaking up totalizing communities, not to destroy them as communities, but to enrich them by emphasising the variety of people within any community and their multiple connections to similar people in other groups. Community is never reducible to uniformity or to any single objective.
More generally, the natural tendency to see conflicts of interest as conflicts between mutually exclusive groups of people neglects the very important fact that those conflicts also exist within most individuals. I have an interest in my security and hence in those who might threaten it being subject to close surveillance. The trouble is that those who exercise such power inevitably are driven to expand and abuse it in the quest for effectiveness. I also have an interest in being free from surveillance myself and living among people who feel free. It is generally impossible for an individual to arrive at a reasonable compromise between such conflicting considerations without taking account of how they affect others. Discussion of those conflicting considerations needs to be undertaken in a cooperative way, as shared problem to be solved rather than a tussle in which there is only one winner.
So kleroterians face an interesting challenge of devising techniques whereby what are selected for certain purposes are not individuals as such, but representatives who see themselves as called on to join cooperatively in constructing solutions that give due weight to all of the conflicting considerations that affect the issues to be decided. One way of achieving this might be to ask candidates for selection to score themselves according to the strength of their interest in relevant connections. So a single mother with children and a dependent parent might rate highly in a body concerned with the design of a health care facility in virtue of her different roles, where a young man with no dependents would count only in one respect. The aim of a selection procedure based on such scores would be to secure a fair representation of relevant interests rather than of individuals as such.
Our interests change over time, often unpredictably. It is counter productive for people to pursue their own present interests without regard to other interests. It is in all our interests to have a richly diverse society in which all legitimate interests are catered for in one way or another. It is a great advantage if it is rich in public goods that underpin the opportunities to develop our potential, our multi-faceted identities and our freedom. From a narrowly economistic point of view, parks are a waste of money. Think of all the wealth that could be generated by building high rise apartments instead. But money is not the only consideration. It is not capable of expressing the value we attach to most of the things we cherish. Their value and relevance come out only in discussion and interpersonal negotiation.
Simple sortition is a method of sampling, a social technology. It needs to be seen in the context of the variety of ways in which according authority to appropriate samples of people can produce constructive decisions about specific public goods, resulting in a rich, flexible and highly participatory society. It may just arise not in virtue of some blueprint or prescription, but by small groups of people seizing on a range of social technologies and finding exciting and productive uses for them, opening their eyes to new things to do.