The meaning of justice

Every day, the idea that there is a universally recognized concept of ‘justice’ (like a Platonic form) becomes more and more laughable. My theory that ‘justice’ is no more than the feeling of defeating a hated person/group looks to be correct; it is a democratic term used by the majority to feel morally superior.
‘Justice’ and ‘injustice’ are subjective emotional feelings. The idea that they are rational is not in line with reality. But the thing that is really disappointing about the truth is that people are so irrational that they don’t even know at whom to direct these emotions.
Look at the NCAA’s recent punishment of Penn State, for example. Most people want to see Penn State punished because they are appalled by the crimes of Jerry Sandusky, etc. But Penn State is an abstraction. Are you angry at the Nittany Lion logo? Or maybe the geographical location? A logo cannot commit a crime.
Personally, I believe in punishing individuals rather than an abstraction.
Basically, Sandusky, Paterno and anyone else involved in the conspiracy should be removed from Penn State (either by the university or NCAA) or otherwise punished via legal arbitration.
What sense does it make to disqualify Penn State from football games that they won? Why punish football players and students? Why fine the university an insane amount of cash? “The area needs a culture change.”
What kind of reasoning is that? Penn State football has no hope of competing for a long time. The punishment is a nonsensical emotional reaction to ‘win’ against the hated ‘Penn State.’
Imagine that you are a resident of Denver, Colorado. Two incidents of mass murder (Columbine and The Joker) have occurred in the area and received national attention. And so imagine if the President of the United States decided that Denver ‘needs a culture change.’
The Denver area taxpayers must pay the U.S. a $1 billion fine. The Feds will provide ‘special monitoring’ to the area (with curfews, etc) and so on with other craziness. Collectivist thinking is dangerous. We are not one big society. We are distinct individuals. And the individual criminals should be punished. In this insane scenario, which sounds like something out of Atlas Shrugged, the economy of Denver is destroyed and the innocent citizens have miserable lives. That is exactly what is happening to the people at Penn State.
Some people are so dense that they go beyond blaming an institution that they substitute for actual people. Instead, they literally place the blame on inanimate objects. Liberals, especially, always blame guns. They say things like “we can have sensible gun-control laws without taking away anyone’s rights.” Except, you know, the right to own the gun. The gun is the greatest invention in the history of liberty. It allows anyone to defend their person/property from a physically superior criminal (which could easily be the State itself).
I’ve become more existentialist over the last few months. When I wrote a purpose of life essay, I had three theories as possibilities: hedonism, liberty, and existentialism. I ignored existentialism then, but it’s a key part. All three theories go together. There is no point to life other than what you decide it to be. Most people find meaning in relationships (romantic/family) and their passions (like sports or a good career). Existentialism adds the necessary individuality and subjectivity to hedonism.
I think that people admire the ‘physicality’ of other people. We admire their fit bodies and what they can do with them. We watch sports to see the theoretical capabilities of humanity. We can also extend this ‘physicality’ to speech. We admire confidence, quick wit, and smooth talking. I think we can even extend this physicality to certain tools/items that become an extension of the body. Most obvious is clothing, as fashion. But we admire skill with tools like guns as well.
But when we shift into the issue of private property, I believe that the admiration turns into jealousy. I believe it is a social phenomenon rather than human nature. It is our emotion that wants it, but our logic makes us aware of the market. We trade rather than steal and both parties are satisfied. That is, until it becomes more and more socially acceptable to steal. Most people today seem to think that it’s ‘just’ to steal from corporations because they ‘screw us over.’ Note that corporations are (1) abstractions and (2) not coercive. And these same people adamantly defend the State.