Perhaps laws and rules exist not to counteract evil and selfishness, but to counteract ego.
One occasionally will justify falsehood or theft or even injury if one "knows what's best". We justify such rule-breaking as "good" if it's intended for good ends.
This only works, however, if we assume that the acting party actually does know what's best. If I tell a small child that Santa delivered their presents, I can only justify it by insisting that I know better than the child about the value of childhood innocence and a magical Christmas versus the value of a realistic understanding of capitalism and reindeer aerodynamics. If Lily does justify the sending of false flag dick pics, it's only because she's... shall we say... confident that she knows better than Gina about what's best for her. It only works, it's only justifiable, if we accept the premise that one party is more intelligent, better informed, or more moral than the other.
Perhaps, then, my own chaotic-aligned tendencies are less reflective of an "untamed spirit" than I'd like to think, and more strongly reflective of my own narcissism. I break rules to achieve good ends because I believe, in any given circumstance, that I understand that particular circumstance better than whoever made the rule.
Of course, in some cases, one does know what's best. Lying to hide Jews in one's attic, stealing a plantation owner's property to help them escape, breaking an arm to help set it correctly... there are plenty of hypothetical cases in which the intelligence and intuition of the individual guides them to break rules for the cause of good.
(We shall leave aside, for the moment, those who insist they're actually following some higher rule, and are therefore still behaving lawfully. That's loopholiness and it doesn't count.)