Coe and Page

Coe poses an interesting question: "what is violence?" According to him the accepted definition (in 1932) of what is violent and non-violent is flawed because a country refusing to do business with another country and a country blockading another country is one and the same (Action vs inaction) - and is placed under the umbrella of violence. Coe then tries to justify "violent" behaviors and states that violence is acceptable as long as it follows these conditions: it provides opportunity for life, growth, and happiness. Basically Coe states that violence is justified when it is for the greater good. While I agree with that sentiment, Coe expands and states that "men of good will" should use violence against those with special privileges for the greater good - when the opportunities of man to advance is nonexistent. This is where Coe may have gone too far over to the side of Socialism. Coe does, however, acknowledge the fact that this doctrine is dangerous because of how fuzzy it can be as well as how forgetful people can be with regards to why you can use force. As an avid supporter of Capitalism I find it difficult to agree with allowing the poor to use violence to take from the rich. In those sentences lies an underlying problem: the definition of what the greater good is. One person may find the poor as having limited liberties and another person may disagree with that; identifying when it is for the greater good and when to use coercion will be subjective to each and every individual.

Page has a similar conclusion to that of Coe: that the policy we undertake must involve a minimum of suffering and offer the greatest opportunity for redemption - the greater good. For Page possess some Realist values and accepts that in our world we are imperfect: suffering is inevitable. Page comes to this conclusion by answering his own question - is coercion ever justifiable? - by saying it is. Denying coercion, Page says, is allowing yourself to reduce society to anarchy and chaos; and by allowing that to happen you allow violence to be the answer. Page states that there are three options society can undertake: these are resistance by violence, inaction or failure to exert effective restraint, or non-violent coercion. The consequences of each option should be evident already. Going back to Page's conclusion: minimum suffering/greatest opportunity for redemption; Page argues that non-violent coercion is the only option that fits this profile (which makes sense). For resistance by violence leads only to more violence; and inaction or ineffective restraint just perpetuates the injustice on the victims. This leads us with only one option: non-violent coercion.