Not that I don’t have problems with state-enforced “justice”.
However, there a few issues I need to address:
(1) Is there a precise non-arbitrary amount you can violate someone’s individual sovereignty in response to their violation of yours?
(2) With the fact that all judgements are subjective, can one ever take retributory action?
(3) Is pre-emptive action ever justifiable?
(4) Are “raider societies” a realistic idea?
I believe that some areas of justice are irredeemably interpretation-laden and will ultimately be dealt with by way of convention, as in the case of the common law. I don’t see this so much a flaw as a recognition of a basic fact of reality. Anyway, on retribution I think you should take a look at this paper by Kinsella. I haven’t read it, but he alluded to it in a recent Mises blogpost on retribution, and judging from other things I’ve read by him, it should be instructive.
Not an amount that can be known a priori, without knowing the specifics of a situation.
I would say no, although not necessarily because of the agent-relativity of judgements. The only thing justified, in my eyes, is restitution.
In response to a credible and imminent threat, yes. Otherwise, no.
Sure. Not libertarian, but realistic.
What I mean is, can we make a judgement prior to any situation, assuming the circumstances.
Then why? And if so, does the agent-relativity (as you put it) matter?
Not without knowing all of the facts: the judicial precedents, cultural and social norms, the specifics of the event and the individuals involved, etc. What Jon said earlier is applicable here.
I say “agent-relativity” because value judgments are subjective in some senses and objective in others. I don’t think it matters very much in this particular issue. I think that retribution is illegitimate because the entire point of justice (applied to torts and crimes) is to restore the victim to as near as their previous state as possible, which punishment after-the-fact doesn’t do.