In other words, laws are moral codes, and legislation is merely regulation?

Not necessarily. Legislation is more of a diktat imposed by rulers, whereas law bubbles up from the values that the society itself holds. If you make a law that mutilating children is a fundamental right, and make some moral claims for this, then that is still just legislation, because that is not broadly shared within the population.

Fair enough, however laws are expected to be followed for a functional society. There is a lot of laws (and legislation) that is important to our society to function and ensure high trust, but wouldn't immediately appear as a moral issue, such as contract law.

Unfortunately, with our rulers being as awful as they are, we should dispense any notion that laws are worthy of respect by the mere fact that they are laws, lest these scruples be used against us. Here in Europe, one crazy law after another is passed, and I'd have to be crazy to believe that they are worthy of being followed. Such high trust as we have is only enabling governments to become ever more tyrannical.

Speeding does the same thing, but its so minor that nobody cares (on top of most speed limits excluding like, school zones, feeling arbitrary).

I've seen people speed in a way that I think: this guy is a maniac. But do it in a safe way, and yeah, no one cares. It does not necessarily put people at risk. Particularly when speeding limits are not imposed for safety reasons, but for all sorts of reasons completely unrelated to it, like 'climate change'.

Some can argue as well that flaunting the law (even legislation) is a form of moral decay, and can lead to flaunting the law in other ways including morally. Who's to say those are not slippery slopes in and of themselves?

It is, but do we have an alternative? Unless we want to say that obedience to the literal worst people in the world is something we should strive for.

In the law, something frequently comes up called the reasonable person standard. There is some vagueness with such a standard, but its ultimately necessary for enforcing and interpreting laws because legalism is not a virtue and we don't live in a vacuum.

I think of the Chinese school when you say 'legalism'. But as you use it, it seems to mean 'strict adherence to the word and not the spirit of the law'. I don't believe in that. If someone steals bread because his sister is hungry, sure. But if you're a wealthy bastard who just wants to save on 50 cents on coffee, how exactly should I feel sympathy for that? Sure, you could argue that he is more sinned against than sinning, but while you can argue about the precise punishment - it is good to come down hard on small (real) crimes! Broken windows and all. It sets an example of what heppens when you steal even minimal amounts, so imagine what happens if you engage in serious theft.

I don't think a reasonable person would believe someone deserves to have their life ruined for the cost of... less than a big bag of chips, there is something profoundly inhuman and callous sounding about that. A warning, a citation, a fine, reimbursement, a temporary or permanent ban from the store, maybe something a bit more, sure, those are all legitimate and reasonable options, but this... is just disturbing.

As I said though: this works both ways. If it's not significant enough for draconian punishment, why was it significant enough for him to steal? And repeatedly steal. By no means do I want to accuse you of dishonesty or of being anything like that lot, but it sort of reminds me of the pro-transgender lot, who argues "who cares what other people want to do?" when you are arguing against it... but then it turns out they care a great deal. They just use indifference as a weapon against others.

Be careful about assuming too much. Stalin killed tens of millions of his own people, who knows how much the next one will do.

But you were suggesting this one would be on the right, correct? Just saying that like the group fleeing from a wolf, I don't need to be the fastest, just faster than 95%.