Who would "enforce" your laws and why would anyone even follow them? They have the right to not follow your laws, right?
What would happen if someone broke your "law"?
What type of ethical system does your proposed set up line up with? I am gonna guess the your are a moral relativist.
Is it Divine Command?
Does the end justify the means?
(Cant be this one because you clearly stated that the end does not justify the means)
Or do we all decide what is right and wrong individually, case by case?
I am a voluntarist (sometimes spelled voluntaryist) and think Panarchism makes sense.
I tend to lean heavily on the non-initiation of aggression principle. This does not mean pacifism, it does allow for defensive force.
You can find lots of information regarding this online. Thanks for asking.
Generally speaking, I'd say the means should be considered and the end result should not be viewed independent of the means.
If someone "broke my law", it would likely mean they initiated aggression against me in some way. There are any number of ways of dealing with that, depending on the severity of the indiscretion and the harm suffered by the victim. Generally speaking the best way to make a person harmed whole again, is to restitute them if that is possible.
I can't determine your life for you and have no desire too, so in my opinion it would be wrong for me to advocate things that dictate malum prohibitum type laws.
