If you've ever driven on the road for example, everyone fucking speeds, only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction are ever caught for it. Doesn't get into how many obscure, arcane, and outdated laws there are that are still legally in effect that people would be considered guilty of if they were ever enforced.

I don't give a damn about 'the law' - look at the moral character of those who make them. I've never followed any speed limit. Jaywalking and speeding are not moral matters, unless you're going 200 km/hour where it's unsafe.

There is a sharp difference between law and legislation, as Hayek said. Law is something that is organic and has deep foundations in a society. The law against stealing would be law. On the other hand, a ban on gas stoves is legislation. If you define the terms in this way, law is worthy of respect and legislation is not.

Not to mention things like context matters. We treat a 5 year old, a 15 year old, a 45 year old, and an 85 year old differently for a reason. We also treat first offenses differently than repeat offenders, and those are 2 of many, many factors that would play into such things.

Yes, I don't understand why you're explaining this. Although this guy was a repeat offender.

You think your reasoning would make a difference to someone with an axe to grind against the enemies of his civilization?

Before he gets to me, he'd have to kill 95% of the population first, so I'm relatively safe.

On that note, you've also used the word "nigger" before iirc

In fact, I used it today. What about the word 'nigger'? I hope I've never given the impression that I care about ridiculous liberal-American sensitivities.

so you would be no darling of the left either and would probably be executed if crazy enough leftists got into power and enacted a totalitarian rule.

I never argued that I was a 'darling' of the left. Considering the things that make them cheer, I hope not.

Forgiveness, mercy, restraint and grace are also part of the western world's moral (and by extension, legal) foundation. We aren't mudslimes here.

It's long abandoned.

Leftists have misunderstood and taken advantage of this "weakness" for their own ends and twisted it around towards their political agendas.

That's a big issue, isn't it? They have an aversion to any sort of punishment - except for their political opponents. If you know Robert Sapolsky, the allegedly eminent biologist, in one of his books he argues that humans do not have free will, and that ideally, people who commit crimes would be segregated from society in such a way that they would not feel as punishment. Quite apart from the moral wrong that this is, only a total fool would believe that this has no anti-deterrent effect.

With all this said, I do understand where you're coming from. But what I don't understand is how you can be so certain and confident that where you decide to draw the line is good, and the people allowing stealing up to $950 are wrong. I can easily see them make the same argument for that, though they never make arguments based on any moral foundation, let alone that of the Western world.