While I understand that this is your personal line and your decision, I don't understand how you mean "an actual human being is harmed". Clearly no human being

While I understand that this is your personal line and your decision, I don't understand how you mean "an actual human being is harmed". Clearly no human being is harmed by smashing the windows of a private car. (assuming that neither the smasher nor anyone else gets hurt in the actual act of the smashing.) As a first order of approximation no human got harmed, they weren't even there when their car's window got smashed. As a second order approximation obviously we know the private car's owner will need to replace the windows which will cost them. At the same time shoplifting from Walmart is also a cost which is born by everyone who shops at Walmart. Walmart will put that cost into the price of items. They will also put the cost of anti-theft items in the price of things too. Plus those anti-theft measures will harm the non-thieves by inconveniencing them. So everyone will pay just a bit more because of the shoplifting. These costs and inconveniences add up quickly. Why is one of these costs within the line and the other is outside the line? What makes one of them "actual human being is harmed" while the other not?