Because vigilante justice is usually defined as people taking legal authority for themselves because they feel the government's authority or response is lacking. If there is no government to define this by, then it is not vigilante justice and starts to delve more into natural rights. Think of a remote village with no semblance of what we would describe as a modern government, they still deal with problems in their own way. You wouldn't call them vigilantes.
I'm not asking for the dictionary definition, I'm asking about why vigilante justice (whether you want to call the participants vigilantes or not) would be less troublesome.
For example, imagine I've discovered Starbucks is doing terrible things, and to express my disgust I go around throwing bricks in the windows of the Starbucks in my area. What prevents/discourages this sort of vigilante behaviour?
In a hypothetical where the government doesn't exist to provide justice, "vigilante justice" would be the only justice. Whether vigilante justice is preferable to a total absence of justice is the question.
More generally, the whole point of vigilantism is going outside the established judicial framework. If there is no such framework, the concept of vigilantism is meaningless.
As to what prevents/discourages this behaviour, the answer is mostly going to be "the presence of an existing judicial structure, backed by force, which disallows such behaviour".
If you're getting hung up on the word vigilante (which has been the case for most people who replied to my earlier comment it seems), replace the word 'vigilante' with the word 'street', i.e. street justice. Note my intended meaning hasn't changed, only the way I'm choosing to express it.
Now what prevents street justice in a society without government intervention? The (simplified) answer is self-organised defence organisations. Is a mob/gang boss a preferable means of protection in a community, compared to those means that can be put in place by an elected government?
Can't we define 'vigilante' to be a response that's not commensurate with the crime? A lack of justice, if you will. In that view, its quite debatable if no justice would not be better.
Vigilante justice is usually about the people choosing to enforce laws that they feel the government is choosing to not enforce. Vengeance usually has nothing to do with the law or its enforcement.
Say a heinous murder is committed and the perpetrator has been discovered. Vigilante justice is a person, or group, taking the perpetrator into custody and punishing them because they don't like that the government refuses to do so for some reason. Vengeance is a person, or group, taking the perpetrator into custody and punishing them even if the government wishes to do the same.
you are definitely not getting the support you think from those definitions. vigilantism fairly clearly has nothing to do with a commensurate response.
So 'avenge' doesn't ring any bells with you? True justice is not about vengeance. In America, we have specific clauses forbidding 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
I'm sorry it seemed that way to you. I try to be concise in writing. If it has an emotional tone, its not because I meant to put it there.
The adjective form of vigilante spells out violent and summary action. Summary action is often incorrect action which would not be commensurate with the (non-existent in that case) crime. Violent action is not the usual response of the justice system, so again it would be a response not commensurate with the (real this time) crime.
That definition seems to support my original description pretty well!
I would imagine that, without a structured government to prevent your destructive behavior and the inevitable response, the owner of the Starbucks in question would shoot you for damaging their property. Neither your actions nor the response of the owner would be considered vigilante justice.
> "I would imagine that, without a structured government to prevent your destructive behavior and the inevitable response, the owner of the Starbucks in question would shoot you for damaging their property. Neither your actions nor the response of the owner would be considered vigilante justice."
I don't care how you define it, what I'm asking is, is that better? Is that the society we want?
No, it is not preferable; for two reasons. For one, vigilante justice usually devolves into something as despicable as the thing the people are wanting justice for. It is also a sign that the government is failing and the people are slipping into anarchy. But that is a different matter than the hypothetical I was answering.
Going back to my original point, which was about whether a capitalist society without government intervention would be free from exploitation, what are your thoughts on that?
I understood what you were trying to say, and I never disagreed. But I didn't feel that was the point of the discussion I was responding to. I don't recall that the economic system of choice was involved in determining whether vigilante justice was actually vigilante justice in the absence of government.
As for your question, a capitalistic society is never free from exploitation. Regardless of the state of the government. Without the government then capitalism would eventually run amok to the detriment of the people. With government it can still go too far due to corruption and cronyism to the detriment of the people. But between the two, I'll take capitalism with government oversight.
But I don't see much of this point to discuss as I believe that any form of economic and government system will never be free from exploitation, because human beings are involved.
The only thing to discourage it would be the better sense of the people in the community. Presumably there are better ways to stop Starbucks than throwing bricks. You have to convince enough people that the place needs to be shut down, then go in and confiscate the coffee beans.
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:
