Yes, of course. There is a very old proverb: Revenge is the best revenge.
In the book Systems of Survival, Jacobs makes the case that there are two systems of ethics that humans follow. She calls them syndromes. These systems correspond to the two means by which people get their living.
The first, and probably older, she calls guardian. This means getting hold of and keeping hold of a territory. Then extract a living out of this territory. This would include such folks as hunter-gatherers. But it also includes more modern institutions such as governments.
The second she calls trade. This means making and doing things of value, then trading these with other people. The classic is the ocean-side people trading with the mountain people. Ocean products for mountain products. Fish for flint, salt for antelope hides, and so on.
She builds a case that each of these corresponds to a system of ethics. Each system is self reinforcing. If you follow all the rules of the system then you will find that your culture is cohesive, persistent, and thrives. But break the rules and things go very badly and rather quickly.
She follows one such example, a hunter-gatherer tribe called the Ik. They lived in a range in central Africa. They followed the migrations of wild animals, hunting for their food and clothing, and living where the hunting was good. They had followed this pattern for many centuries. Their language gave clues that they might have been there doing this since at least ancient Egypt times.
But the authorities made their territory a game preserve. They were required to become farmers. They were given a segment of land sufficient to farm for the size of their tribe. And seed to plant and animals, all similar to their nearby farming neighbors.
At the start of the transition to farming they tried to follow the ethics they followed while nomads. They cared about honor, exerted prowess, they were ostentatious, they respected heirarchy, they were suspicious of outsiders, they shunned trade. And they took revenge.
And they very nearly died out. Their ethics, which had worked well for centuries as nomads, was incompatible with a life as farmers who needed to cooperate and trade with their neighbors. Learning this lesson was drastically harsh for them. You can read of this in The Mountain People by Turnbull. I suggest it is not good bedtime reading since several parts of it are truly horrific.
Today the Ik are subsistence farmers and doing OK. Not exactly rich but they have more than bare survival. They trade with their neighbors. They value learning. They shun force. They even are starting to send some of their children to college.
This illustrates that ethics must correspond to the manner of life in the local culture. Revenge is a vital part of the guardian ethic.
And guardians include the government of a country. Recall that a government must wield force. If they don't then they get ignored. And so they cannot also operate on the basis of trade. Government necessarily falls in the guardian ethic. So, to repeat, they must care about honor, exert prowess, be ostentatious, respect heirarchy, be suspicious of outsiders, shun trade. And take revenge.
Jacobs's thesis is that the set of rules for guardians is a system. It is self reinforcing. Follow all the rules and it will be cohesive and long lasting. Fail to follow all the rules and it will be corrupt and fragile.
So too are the rules for traders. They should follow their rules to get cohesion and longevity.
So the government should stick to non-trade aspects of society. And the merchants should stick to trade aspects. And they should each follow their own rules.