This conception implies a danger largely prevalent in our society: corruption. To return to a familiar question: Why has the chief clerk of the Supreme Court found so much resistance in Congress to change the judicial register by dividing opinions into numbered paragraphs as to render it more legible? Because mutual consent in our contemporary society brings with it a crucial caveat - mutual does not mean equal, and the law is not indifferent to the refracted forces at play. I wonder whether there is hidden in this idea an echo of Holmes's distinction, quoting Hegel, between the appetite and the opinion, money and the command of ideas. It would be great to hear your thoughts on (1) the 'practicality' of Cohen's conceived world (2) the potential for corruption in this model and (3) how much our process disguises and consequently legitimizes this corruption with political and legal rhetoric and systems, "appeals to reason or goodness" (837)?