> Upgrading my windows to be double-paned without city approval should not result in a greater punishment from the government than attacking someone on the stre

> Upgrading my windows to be double-paned without city approval should not result in a greater punishment from the government than attacking someone on the street. I agree with the statement if you mean that you should be punished more for the latter than for the former. But if you mean that you should be punished less for X and someone else should be punished more for Y (where Y is a greater crime than X), there simply are not enough details to know if I agree. I might think that you should be punished more when you are in a position to profit from the actions and therefore be more willing to continue despite the punishment (e.g. a restaurant owner refusing to make up the minimum wage difference for a server who didn't make enough in tips) whereas the other person committed their crime from opportunism in a desperate situation (e.g. a homeless person who robbed an unfortunate individual for money, including causing some minor injuries). If the same person were to commit both crimes, obviously the latter is worse; if different people commit the crimes, I'd be interested to know more about the perpetrators if I was asked to pass judgement. > The complaint is that laws are structured in a way that only affect people who have something material to lose. This is how it should be. Society should be structured such that every member of it has something material to lose.