Sure, let's get down to a real level then here.
There is no inherent "goodness" or "badness" to any given actions. Instead, we give them the label of "good" or "evil" or "bad" based on a couple sets of criteria. The first is generally one of self promotion and wellness. If this is pleasing and beneficial to the individual, we assign the "good" label. This can take on different forms though because sometimes we have a break in this process through things like addiction - which cause someone to believe a thing is beneficial to them when it is not. When other people see this from the outside, they generally step in to help - this is the genesis of intervention and treatment for addiction.
When that concept extends beyond the individual and onto systems themselves, the inherent "goodness" or "badness" is still not based on the thing or the action itself but based on the impact that such actions or things have on the individuals and the groups that encompass them. For instance, would a crime like rape be "bad" if no humans were hurt and society didn't get hurt? Well, no. That's just consensual sex. We give it that different name and the correlation of being bad not because the act itself is something that is bad but because the impact it has is harmful to both individuals and society. So rape IS bad, but not intrinsically - because of the value it holds for people and society. It does not help the longevity of the system at all. It is detrimental.
The reason I talk about those moral and ethical guides is because the laws that we have are meant to enforce those labels. The reason we make laws is to enforce societal and social development and flourishing. So, shoplifting damages the community because it causes people to have a loss of their personal resources and it also drives cost up for all of the non-shoplifters. For this reason, it is labeled as "bad" and we have DISCOURAGE the behavior by attaching that with an equally undesirable outcome such as being arrested or taken to jail.
This is not the genesis of freedom because freedom itself does not regard the concept of their being no laws. Freedom is an inherent right to be able to do that which you like but that's only on the individualistic stance. Societal freedom or "free societies" do not do this or they stop being societies. Without the laws that uphold those actions, society is susceptible to the pitfalls of people doing societally degenerative things with no consequences and the concept dies.
