Punishment and Compensation

We all know that in any society at any given moment, the inability or failure to act as the majority would automatically draw a punishment, for many centuries death, more recent, legal punishment, fines or imprisonment. The major issue I find with this line of reasoning is expectation, and I further divide this expectation into two categories.

Firstly, the argument derives itself from the expectation of normality and its imposition on any individual or group that would divert from a set line of guidelines by the authorities that would legitimise their action as either divine or from a legal-rational point of view, which holds close to consensual view of democracy, i.e., we all sometime agreed to do this, so it has to be done. The issue of state origins will be discussed at a further date, however, since in a modern society we can redefine the relationship with the authority mediums (at least in theory), it's fair enough to say that we can start agreeing again on whichever form of government and type of rules and regulations we may want, discarding the majority dictatorship side of democracy.

So getting back to the question at hand, the right to derive normalisation legitimacy lies not within the back minds of oligarchies that have a fictitious sense of morality through their intimate recollections of the divine or their own diamond-sparkling soul. I guess that since we say that the more virtuous between a man who has money and is boasting and another that has none and is in want, is quite really the one that does not care at all for the possession of money or derivatives, then we can fairly assume that between men who think themselves as moral and those who are thought as immoral the more righteous would be at least the ones amoral, indefinable and unbiased.

The second matter is focused on the expectation by society of individuals and groups to act in such a way as to do otherwise would recede into punishment, and is partly inferred from the first argument. It should be acted under the presupposition that everyone, since assessed as 'equal', would therefore have an either biased or relative position on any occurrence that would affect them directly or indirectly in any way, then it's quite possible to reason a practical measure and effective keep of normalisation within society: the punishment of those who are alienated from this sense and the compensation, rightly so and equated to their own contributions of those in alignment with the said regulations and norms at any rate imposed.

I should not be understood incorrectly, I do not sanction the use of any societal normalisation techniques imposed by anyone on anybody. I do however mitigate for an effective use of the social apparatus for a better cohesion among the units and sprockets of a society, since the former cannot be avoided, apparently, at all. And one more commentary, I'm obliging the legal-rational use of this approach, for all that are 'equal in front of the law' so that the mechanism of individual and groups can move smoothly towards even an ounce of progress, not the oligarhical-type system, within cliques and sects that are more extremist-based that favour a machinery based on individual control, manipulation and fear induction.