Questions on anger and standing on principle

Does the world always work better when people/organizations have to suffer the consequences of their actions? I recently read an article by a guy who spent an hour on the customer service relay to correct fifty cents he was incorrectly billed. He realized his time was worth more than that. However, I think it's more complicated than just the cost-effectiveness principle.

I started thinking about this because of the mortgage crisis. People have gotten really upset over the idea of bailing out people who've taken out mortgages they couldn't afford. A reporter who incited traders with a question on that got plenty of reaction!

On the other hand, President Obama pointed out that if we don't help our neighbor, the whole neighborhood could go, including our house. Our houses are worth less in a neighborhood of foreclosed houses through no fault of our own. We're affected by others' bad decisions, and the question is whether we should let them learn the lesson and be hurt ourselves in the process, or help ourselves, but let them escape the full consequences.

I read an interesting article about how people who are more likely to punish those who violate the rules of the game are the same people who are more likely to be helpful to others. It's sort of a "protecting the community" kind of thing. The people most willing to pay a personal price to punish a freeloader (altruistic punishment) were the same ones most likely to help those less fortunate than themselves.

The problem is that altruistic punishment is driven by a feeling of anger, and I think usually righteous anger. You need strong emotion to make someone put herself at risk for the benefit of the group. This means that your family suffers by losing your house's value if it's the way to punish wrong doers.

I wonder whether taking action spurred by righteous anger is ever a good idea. When I've been righteously angry, I've sometimes wanted to do things that have not been for the highest good of all, not to mention my own good. I've often not recognized the larger picture, but gotten a holier-than-thou thrill of judging, which, like too many Margaritas, tastes great at the time but leaves you feeling bad later. It's the thrill of superiority in righteous anger that makes me queasy.

To me, the question is: which principle is most relevant here, and how likely is my action going make a difference? With the 50 cent customer service question, I kind of doubt that spending an hour going through the customer service chain will change the way the company bills, although I've read that lots of companies use adding just an extra few pennies to everyone's bill to make a lot of money.

In terms of the mortgage crisis, lots of people, not just my family, will be hurt if some people don't escape at least some of the consequences of their actions, a "greatest good of all" type situation. Sometimes there's a middle way, like finding a way to let people stay on as renters or reducing long term equity in their homes when they go up. Sometimes not, and sometimes there's not time to find the best solution.

What do you think? What do you do when you get righteously angry? Is action based on anger that's not righteous anger different? What would it look like in this case? Does the world always work better when people have to suffer the consequences of their actions?