Tarnicus: Hopefully I get back to replying in full to your post, as you eloquently address multiple issues that open up some interesting discussions, especially if people are able to discuss the topics calmly(something I struggle to do at times).
Your first sentence(bolded) raises an issue that I have been thinking about of late, namely the notion of the
Social Contract: "Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights" It is something that I have always had issue with, namely that I
haven't agreed to any contract, and therefore I cannot comprehend the notion of living by laws that:
a/ I have not consented to
b/ I do not agree with
c/ I do not have any power to change
d/ Are used selectively to determine criminal action based upon police 'discretionary powers', and finally
e/ Are applied inequitably based upon power (usually money and connections)
With that said, I see self justice as the only alternative when institutions and their "safeguards" fail to adequately meter out justice. I understand that justice is subjective, and the only person who can truly determine what is a just punishment for a crime is the individual(s) who are the victims of the crime(s). When systems fail, and have continued to fail, what choice is one left with?
"They promise him obedience, while he promises his protection and good government. While he keeps his part of the bargain, they must keep theirs, but if he misgoverns the contract is broken and allegiance is at an end." J. W. Gough, The Social Contract (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936
This may be an archaic quote regarding the Social Contract, but I find it quite appropriate to this topic and the nature of law and governance. The contract that I never agreed to has been broken constantly by those in power, so why should I adhere to it?
Power is a cake and no piece will ever be left unclaimed so you can't expect everyone to just sit around the cake and not touch it. Also, there aren't enough pieces for everyone. The anarchist's dream is to smash the cake into such small pieces that no one bothers picking up the resulting little crumbs and thus everyone tries to live in peace without anyone using power on anyone, no coercion of any kind. My dream as well, but it's a dream because it doesn't factor in human nature which has not evolved at all since the dawn of civilization. There's always some civilizations that as a whole can pull things off more nicely than others but they rise and sink and humankind as a whole hasn't changed one bit. (I'm not talking about flatscreen TVs and spaceships)
Humans are tribal animals, biggest difference is we write our laws on paper. I'm with you on a/, b/ (partially), d/ and e/, there's not much one can argue against that. As for c/, laws were made by people and they can be changed by people. You are a person too and if you play the politics game then you can change laws. Not single-handedly of course but more like Thulsa Doom in that you influence people and usurp the power to change laws or become law in that way. If you're like me and don't like to play that game because you don't like manipulating people and all the BS, well then you're out of luck. But I still think that the Rule of Law is preferable to the "Rule of the Fist" as we call it in German because the latter would quickly translate to "rule of who has the bigger gun and more friends/goons/allies". Now if one wants to be cynical, rule of fist is already in place even in Switzerland as the police have guns and they outnumber any citizen who wants to go against the grain - and the police don't serve me as much as those who have usurped the largest pieces of the power cake even if you take police corruption out of the equation - the police enforce the laws which people like me who have no cake can't influence all that much. Then again, as mentioned above I could play the politics game and usurp larger pieces of the cake than the tiny crumb I have, kinda my fault if I don't.
As for self justice, emotionally I can most certainly sympathize with it but not rationally, not if you put the long-term greater good of society above your short-term personal urges. Not saying I wouldn't act the same as the Russian guy under stress but I would not have any expectations of society to show any mercy on me (or anyone) after such a the deed. In other words, if I can't control my urge to apply self justice, then I have no place in society.
If I compare a place where there is rule of law such as Switzerland to places where revenge killing is culturally or even legally acceptable, then Switzerland generally comes out on top as the better place to live, even if I never agreed to most of the laws here and am not happy with quite a number of them.
Of course correlation does not imply causation but there is little alternative to comparing countries at face value - proving what causes what is an endless loop. You could say Switzerland is nice to live in not because of its laws but because of economic factors etc and that the revenge killing friendly countries are worse off for "economic factors alone" but I'm not quite risk-friendly enough to try and find out if Switzerland or other comparable countries would remain stable and peaceful if you'd remove rule of law. Money and connections rule here like in every other place but as I pointed out in the first paragraph there have always been some places that are more tolerable to live in than others - it changes over the centuries. To what degree the respective legal systems in place are a factor I can't define but I can't think of any sizable and not geographically isolated case where anarchism has ever worked to the benefit of the common populace. As I said, human nature will ensure there's always some bullies sneaking into the pantry and slicing up the power cake. That cake is always there, if no one touches it than we could have something potentially great but it only takes a few to ruin it for everybody.
Ultimately, there's not one place on Earth that has a legal system and laws that I consider ideal. Which is why I would probably volunteer for the Mars Mission, but only if there are no asshats on the spaceship with me.
