I read today of the negotiations with Iran, and of the former leader who claims he can make a “better” arrangement than the one before. They speak of deals and terms, of who conceded what and who gained more. I find my mind drifting from the substance of the bargain to the act of bargaining itself.

We appoint a person to speak for us all. We call him the negotiator. He goes to a distant place and agrees to things on our behalf. Then we obey. We do not know the man. We did not sit at the table. We did not hear the words exchanged. Yet we accept that his signature binds us, as if we had signed it ourselves. If a friend promised a stranger to give away your property, you would call it theft. But when a man with a title does it, we call it statecraft. I do not understand the difference.

They argue over which arrangement is “better.” But this presumes the arrangement itself is necessary. It presumes that millions must be bound by the pen strokes of a few. The habit is so complete that we debate only the terms of our servitude, not the servitude itself. We have forgotten to ask why we must have a “deal” at all. The custom of being represented has become a fact of nature. We are like sleepers who dream of choosing a softer chain.

The arithmetic is plain: one person, or a handful, decide for countless others. The countless others will live with the consequences, pay the costs, follow the rules. And they will do so without complaint, because they have been taught that this is how things are done. The true marvel is not that one leader believes he can improve the terms. The marvel is that we all believe we must be bound by terms we did not set. The power of the negotiator is only the power we grant him by our silent consent to be negotiated for. When will we withdraw it?