{"id":1416,"date":"2011-11-06T18:13:25","date_gmt":"2011-11-06T22:13:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=1416"},"modified":"2011-11-13T13:20:50","modified_gmt":"2011-11-13T17:20:50","slug":"the-consensus-of-the-self-governing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=1416","title":{"rendered":"The consensus of the self-governing . . ."},"content":{"rendered":"
. . . appears as the vital Idea of which the “consent of the governed” is a pale and passive imitation, and as what distinguishes and divides a People from a State. A few posts<\/a> ago I quoted Nietzsche:<\/p>\n Where there are still peoples, the state is not understood, and is hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I hold up as support for Nietzsche’s observation the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois Confederacy<\/a> and the attitude of the Iroquois to the authoritarian governments brought over by the British colonists, and recommend Charles Mann’s 2005 op-ed<\/a> in the New York Times on this subject. In his book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus<\/em><\/a>, Mann wrote:<\/p>\n Different nations had different numbers of sachems, but the inequality meant little because all decisions had to be unanimous; the Five Nations regarded consensus as a social ideal. As in all consensus-driven bodies, though, members felt intense pressure not to impede progress with frivolous objections.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n