You're missing the point. My definition of terrible things may be different from your definition of terrible things. Without a legal framework in place, everyone will choose to act based on their own personal views.
Let's go back to the Starbucks example. The reason I used Starbucks is because they're very likely to be one of the companies that's indirectly supporting the deforestation happening in Indonesia as a result of demand in palm oil.
Now how responsible do you make them? One person may argue it's not Starbucks' fault, it's up to the suppliers to act responsibly. Another person would say that companies like Starbucks should be made responsible, as they're one of the companies driving demand for cheap palm oil without the environmental cost factored in.
The reason we have laws in place is to act as a way to set out acceptable behaviour, informed by consensus rather than the whim of an individual. If we abandon law we abandon the framework by which the actions of individuals can be fairly judged. If we leave it up to individuals then you're much more likely to have chaos, more exciting perhaps but more frustrating if you want to have any lasting stability.
I believe you missed my point as well. Government creates laws that are voted on (either through representation or directly with full democratic voting) which are then enforced through "approved" force (the executive branch, the police, etc). When government and police don't exist (or aren't doing their jobs) it forms a vacuum for vigilantes to exist in.
This isn't just theory. In countries where (for lack of a better work) the justice framework has broken down (such as Mexico) vigilantes fight against cartels due to police and the government taking no action (either due to fear, corruption, etc). A vigilante is only a vigilante until there is no local sanctioned governing and policing structure, at which point the vigilante becomes the police for all intents and purposes.
Does this cause chaos? I'm sure. At the same time, I'm sure locals would prefer someone protecting them versus no one.
I'm not completely against vigilantism, there are cases where it's warranted, especially as a temporary workaround for government corruption. However, once you start relying on vigilantism as the only way to get things done then new problems arise, if I had to generalise those problems they're to do with increased difficulty in going back to stable governance.
Consider the rise of the Sicilian Mafia as one example of what can happen when you have an inept government unable or unwilling to protect its people:
Let's go back to the Starbucks example. The reason I used Starbucks is because they're very likely to be one of the companies that's indirectly supporting the deforestation happening in Indonesia as a result of demand in palm oil.
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/25/...
Now how responsible do you make them? One person may argue it's not Starbucks' fault, it's up to the suppliers to act responsibly. Another person would say that companies like Starbucks should be made responsible, as they're one of the companies driving demand for cheap palm oil without the environmental cost factored in.
The reason we have laws in place is to act as a way to set out acceptable behaviour, informed by consensus rather than the whim of an individual. If we abandon law we abandon the framework by which the actions of individuals can be fairly judged. If we leave it up to individuals then you're much more likely to have chaos, more exciting perhaps but more frustrating if you want to have any lasting stability.