But Duguit says that if there were a collective will there is no reason why it should impose itself on the individual wills. “_L’affirmation que la collectivité a le pouvoir légitime de commander force qu’elle est la collectivité, est une affirmation d’ordre métaphysique oú religieux...._” This in itself shows a misunderstanding of the evolution of a collective will. This school does not seem to understand that every one must contribute to the collective will; ideally it would have no power unless this happened, actually we can only be constantly approaching this ideal.[108] Duguit makes a thing-in-itself of _la volonté nationale_—it is a most insidious fallacy which we all fall into again and again. But we can never accept that kind of a collective will. We believe in a collective will only so far as it is _really_ forming from out our actual daily life of intermingling men and women. There is nothing “metaphysical” or “religious” about this. Duguit says metaphysics “_doit rester étranger à toute jurisprudence_....” We agree to that and insist that jurisprudence must be founded on social psychology. Five people produce a collective idea, a collective will. That will becomes at once an imperative upon those five people. It is not an imperative upon any one else. On the other hand no one else can make imperatives for those five people. It has been generated by the social process which is a self-sufficing, all-inclusive process. The same process which creates the collective will creates at the same time the imperative of the collective will. It is absolutely impossible to give self-government: no one has the right to give it; no one has the power to give it. Group A _allows_ group B to govern itself? This is an empty permission unless B has _learned how_ to govern itself. Self-government must always be grown. Sovereignty is always a psychological process.