I want to say right at the start that I support what the people behind ethereum classic have done. I support the original ethereum blockchain. Doing a hard fork, when a problem such as what happened with the DAO arises, is the beginning of a slippery slope. However, I disagree with some of the argument put forward against doing the hard fork. The part of the argument I disagree with is this idea that the attack on the DAO was not a theft. This article summarizes that argument by saying;
"The so called “malicious” contract performed entirely legitimate Ethereum code without exploiting any security gaps in the protocol. From this perspective it could hardly be called theft, since no passwords got stolen, no hacking was performed and all smart contracts operated within Ethereum’s set of rules"
This is like saying that if I were to leave my car keys in the ignition and the car unlocked, it wouldn't be theft if someone got into my car and drove away with it. After all, they didn't have to break in (hack or steal a password), and turning the key and driving away was within the operating parameters of the vehicle(operated within Ethereum’s set of rules).
Again, I want to emphasize that I do not support the ethereum hard fork, even though what happened with the DAO WAS theft. Think again about that car that I left the key in and door unlocked. Say I had a pile of money in that car that other people gave me to invest for them. Sorry, but those folks are out of luck. They can choose to sue me for my carelessness, but imagine them calling up the federal government and saying the following;
'excuse me, but some thief stole a pile of our money, could you please start to print a different fiat currency or just bail me out".
The first option is ludicrous, the second does happen from time to time, and we all know where the majority of people stand on that issue. It has nothing to do with whether the money was stolen or not. Don't get drawn into that side of the argument, it's what the people who support the hard fork want you to do because then they have a chance of justifying their actions. Just say "No bailout", whether the money was stolen or not, "no bailout!".
To some extent I agree with you about the car keys. But not entirely, as I think it's a lot more elusive in this context. There was supposed to be no police saying what is right or wrong - that's the notion behind smart contracts. That way "theft" as such can't really take place - it's a coding error. The miners vote with their hashing power if a fork is proposed, and that's about it. The contracts are just code, and since Etehreum is Turing complete, everything that can be coded and ran is legal.
On the other hand I can totally see the drama and potential tragic consequences of such a radical approach.
Still the world needs clean, tough, incorruptible technology more than ever, with all the crony legislation being pushed and privilaged agendas corrupting the planet.
It also certainly sucks that the DAO money most likely came from most progressive and rebellious investors standing up to the system. And they were the first ones to get smoked by something they believed in. That's ironic and tragic at the same time, but as they say, revolutions devour their children.
I understand what your saying, but I think you may be confusing the act of stealing with what the law says about it, whether that law is traditional law, or the "law of code". If you take something from someone and that person did not give you permission, that it stealing. That definition is independent of law. The act of stealing predates any code of laws. Even if you go as far back as the old testament, the statement said "thou shall not steal". The act of stealing was recognized before any laws or police did anything about it.
My point is this. What happened with the DAO was stealing, but it was not illegal within the context of "The Code is The Law" viewpoint. We are so used to thinking of stealing as being illegal, that we tend to lump the two together. It is conceivable that we could have a society that chooses not to make stealing illegal. That is one of the radical consequences that you may be referring to above.