Yeah no, murder doesn't "boil down to theft". Murder is murder.

I said it wasn't inherently harmful.

Second, if you're going to stretch the word Theft to include murder and kidnapping/imprisonment, we're both wasting time because we aren't using the same language at all. Just let me know you're standing on that principle and I won't bother you again.

That being said, with the normal usage of Theft, it really depends on what you take from whom, and how much as to whether harm is done.

Secondary to that, even when there is harm from theft, it can still be justified. Me stealing a medication from a pharmacy certainly costs someone something, but if that's the last ditch option when all else has failed, is it really a situation where the harm of the theft outweighs the harm of the broken society that made it necessary? While two wrongs don't make a right, some wrongs preclude right in the first place.

In that scenario, the harm is so heavily distributed via tax breaks and insurances that it might even be a benefit overall since without some theft as a reason to exist, there's entire industries that wouldn't exist. The individual theft is still a harm tp some link in the chain, but the chain itself is not harmed at all.

Stepping back even further, what about stealing back? I paid taxes and monies into a broken system, thus me stealing necessary medication could be simply taking back what was taken from me in bad faith. Restitutional theft ain't really theft, in other words.

Again, I never said theft was never harmful, I said it isn't inherently harmful.

"Taking a life" is an euphemism for "killing". It's not like you get your victim's remaining lifespan when you kill them. Life isn't taken, it is destroyed.