But when someone acts with disregard to that which is dictated by society,
Everyone does that to some degree or another, not in the least because there is a lot of variation on what society dictates. The expectations are to a significant extent circunstantial.
That is not even much of a problem; such diversity of expectations is often healthy, even necessary.
what consequences or remedy can one find without law and a legal system?
It seems to me that most often they are found by seeking or nurturing alternate social environments and support networks.
"Tribes", if you will.
There are disputes that are not capable of being resolved by the individuals involved.
That is an interesting statement to consider.
Are individuals that powerless over their own destinies? How often, and how should they deal with it when it happens?
Sometimes, no doubt they will lack such power to shape their circunstances and end up having to rely on the intervention of others that have less personal knowledge or investiment on the dispute yet know the decision systems better. It definitely does happen.
Ultimately, though, that amounts to hoping other people to know better or to defend one's interests better than oneself.
That can be a good idea under the right circunstances. It turns out however that one of the most decisive of those circunstances is that the matter in dispute should not be too important. Judicial disputes must be affordable, must be reserved for those matters that are not central enough to our lives to be considered important or decisive.
In short, we must be prepared to deal with the raw reality that judicial decisions have little more than accidental correlation with justice in the best of times.
It is unwise to rely on their wisdom, for they are not supposed to have any.
Any system without a legal system to resolve conflict favors the strongest individual.
As does any system with a legal system, except that the legal system brings the power of the political power with it. It may also delay resolution and raise false hopes to some extent or another.
Having the support of an entity more powerful than any individual entity allows for weaker individuals to find remedy when society recognizes a legal wrong.
It certainly may happen. But not with anything resembling a reliable or worthwhile frequency. In short,
it should not be hoped for.
Society should not be expected to reform the individual, and certainly not by enforcing judicial decisions over him. That simply does not work, basically because the individual will feel, usually quite correctly, that laws and judicial decisions fail to take into account who he is and what reasons he could have had.
Instead, individuals must decide to exercise citizenship and open the way for each other of their own accord, without being coerced into obedience of some literally blind law or rule.
No community can truly be coerced into thriving.
I could understand you arguing that our current legal system is not the best, and some other method would be better. But, society needs some legal system.
Maybe it does. But it harms itself greatly when it decides to lend that legal system any degree of importance or significance. Laws are supposed to be a very minor aspect of society, reserved for lost causes and directed towards cutting them before they become bigger lost causes.
The conflict itself is an open wound in society's living tissue, and spending resources on growing it, elaborating it and making a great deal of it is an exercise on masochism and decadence.
