@larkenrose Another interesting piece. All the "feeling the need for violence" but the frustration from "forgiveness, or fear, or just plain laziness, when everyone decides that they personally aren’t going to use violence" results in the desire to outsource the violence to the State. Hence people are indifferent to the 'injustice' of the State (even, sometimes, when it visits them personally). What you've mentioned elsewhere though is that in this process they also elevate the rights of State agents beyond that of e.g. a private security agency. I believe your position is that this rights elevation, rather than violence or injustice themselves, is really the problem. In your story above the 'concerned citizen' did not have the right do what he did (property damage based his own assessment of what constitutes 'endangering people') however, the outcome re-established a 'social equilibrium' (assuming the 'drunk dude' doesn't feel the need for violence in response etc.). He momentarily, independently, elevated his own rights to include destruction of another's property without recourse. The community must approve of this momentary rights elevation otherwise equilibrium cannot have been restored. If our rights can be elevated/delevated according to our 'feelings' then they have no meaning because they'll simply devolve to 'do what thou wilt'. Rights provide an objective standard (e.g. actual damage) so that the concept of 'justice' doesn't become eroded by subjectivism.