<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama&#8217;s Michigan Commencement Speech</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.eighteenpowers.org/index.php/2010/05/obamas-michigan-commencement-speech/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.eighteenpowers.org/index.php/2010/05/obamas-michigan-commencement-speech/</link>
	<description>Explore the Founders&#039; Intent of Limited Federal Power</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:22:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.eighteenpowers.org/index.php/2010/05/obamas-michigan-commencement-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:19:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eighteenpowers.org/?p=152#comment-51</guid>
		<description>How exactly do you conclude from the Federalist Papers, of all places, that the Founders&#039; meant to create an order with NO coercion in it?  The Articles of Confederation weren&#039;t coercive ENOUGH for Mr. Hamilton!

Whether democratic (small d) or republican (small r), the Western Tradition of politics attempts to preserve autonomy by grounding coercion in consent - but coercion doesn&#039;t go away.  For Locke, Paine, etc., political society begins as consensus decision-making, but only for a moment.  If the consensus-based origins of political community persist, they soon break apart.  Individual actors soon agree to majority rule AND to representative government (two mutually supporting institutions you oppose to one another) or else the political community ceases to exist.  To paraphrase Locke, a body must move in the direction of the greater force, or else break apart.

If there is such a stark distinction between coercion and liberty, you won&#039;t find it in the Founders or in the men they read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How exactly do you conclude from the Federalist Papers, of all places, that the Founders&#8217; meant to create an order with NO coercion in it?  The Articles of Confederation weren&#8217;t coercive ENOUGH for Mr. Hamilton!</p>
<p>Whether democratic (small d) or republican (small r), the Western Tradition of politics attempts to preserve autonomy by grounding coercion in consent &#8211; but coercion doesn&#8217;t go away.  For Locke, Paine, etc., political society begins as consensus decision-making, but only for a moment.  If the consensus-based origins of political community persist, they soon break apart.  Individual actors soon agree to majority rule AND to representative government (two mutually supporting institutions you oppose to one another) or else the political community ceases to exist.  To paraphrase Locke, a body must move in the direction of the greater force, or else break apart.</p>
<p>If there is such a stark distinction between coercion and liberty, you won&#8217;t find it in the Founders or in the men they read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

