My question concerned your argument that laws should be based on harm.
Strawman. You cannot quote me anywhere on this thread where I made that argument because I never did and you know it. Admit your error and then perhaps I'll continue the discussion of what you wrote and what I wrote. I will not engage in your strawman arguments nor let you "put words in my mouth".
Then explain what you meant by, "If you think you or your property have been damaged ... take them to court and try to convince an impartial jury that you were harmed and the extent of that harm so that you may gain restitution for your loss."
Do you deny that you only favor laws against acts that harm others through force or fraud? Do you deny that you oppose laws against behavior which does not harm others?