I never said that anything we can do should be legal. I said that there should be a consistent moral framework upon which all laws should be based. And I think that laws should be defined objectively, not based in intent or outcome, but in facts.

> Shooting people is just pulling a small lever. Objectively speaking, it's not much different from driving a car.

Shooting people is more like throwing stones at them. If you own a gun, you're responsible for knowing that pulling the lever implies shooting projectiles at them.

I think throwing projectiles at someone should be illegal (above some reasonable threshold of momentum. e.g (5 g * 2 m/s)).

Picking someone's lock can be considered handling someone else's property without permission. (Physically) handling someone else's property without permission should also be illegal.

All of these things are physical actions. The state should care about the physical actions of their citizens, but not about ideas, concepts, intent, or arbitrary abstractions. Those abstractions are the citizen's business, and legislating them is arbitrary and unfair.

If I have a mental breakdown every time someone says hello to me, then should we make it illegal to say hello to me? After all, they're causing me severe mental distress and maybe I could lose my job because of these people.

In my opinion, it would be unfair to ban "hello" because one person doesn't like it. It's my problem to have a mental breakdown because of specific messages, not yours or the state's.

Same principle applies to software. If your website has a breakdown every time I send specific IP packets, that's your problem, not mine or the state's.