Are health and justice.
Without a method of law and justice, there's anarchy. And a civilization can't exist in an anarchy (well, not a big one anyway, and certainly not a world player).
Hand in hand with that is health. When you're sick, you're returned to work, or the ability to go and get the next job.
Without both of those, life would be hard. That's what prompted the NHS in the UK years ago, and much as though it's a popular whipping boy sometimes, and a big money sink, we do have a well functioning medical body that will fix most things.
If you want it faster, by all means, take up private insurance as well (hell, when things go wrong at the private hospitals, they pack the patients back to the NHS where they know it'll be fixed).
If you really don't think the state should be involved in the general wellbeing of the people, then how do you feel about a completely privately owned police force and court system. You think you get it rough now with the MPAA and RIAA lobbying to get through a heavily one sided deal? It would be orders of magnitude worse under a completely private, for profit, arrangement.
Personally, I rate my health as highly as I rate a chance at getting a bit of justice (the legal system doesn't always give you the answer you want, same as a hospital won't always give you good news, but at least everyone should have a shot at getting some, without having to reach for a credit card).
That's part of what I call freedom. If the world falls apart around you, at least you have your health 'eh? What, you can't afford the medication, and you have to put yourself in someone's debt to be able to do so? Hmmmm...
Healthcare should be a function of government, with commerce adding the nice bits on top.. Faster, newer, hopefully better, but definitely more expensive. The real grunt work of keeping the masses healthy should be simple and cheap.. Not necessarily profitable.

No, it doesn't put them out of a job. And where it does, the money stays in companies that are trying to innovate. For each lawyer that leaves employment, you'll probably have 10 more in productive companies that don't lose their job as their company doesn't get bogged down in a legal mire over spurious claims.
If some part of the system is broken (and it is), fix it. This may be the first of the cracks in the "Business Process" patent crap tht starts the path to getting the ridiculously inappropriate software patents fixed.

They didn't say "guns turn you into bank robbers".
I seem to remember a chap discovering an old firearm in public, took it to a police station to turn it in, and was promptly arrested for possession of a firearm (illegal in the UK).
So, yes, possession of a firearm can turn you into a criminal.

I know a few good judges. A few crap ones too, but the good guys are out there.

Will now be greeted with the endless chants of "Get off my lawn!".

Maybe. But maybe 12 weeks (likely result with behaviour) in a hard environment where some seriously unpleasant people take a serious dislike to that kind of behaviour may make a more lasting impression on someone who's already shown that they don't give a rat's ass about anyone else's feelings.

That should be put on the Terms of Service of every ISP. Excellently put!

You do have interesting posts.. But one thing you seem to be doing is chasing a "letter of the law" where there are cases that the "spirit of the law" is also under consideration.
What's being taken into account is the likelihood of causing harm and suffering. Which is an objective viewing and debate about a subjective matter.
What the judgement will have taken into account is that the likelihood of the comments/videos causing harm and undue suffering were large (bordering on certain). That the intent was of a malicious nature (they were put there to cause harm and suffering; it's what trolls do; evoke a response, primarily negative).

Must say that you've successfully diverted the question of whether the chap maliciously caused harm and suffering (which he happily admitted to, which caused him to be locked up) and started asking whether it's now ok because he's not caused anything to be 'damaged or irretrievably broken'.
Very nice straw man.

Yes, you can see into 'alternate', or rather 'potential' realities. You do it every day as part of a process called 'planning'. Empathising, to some extent, is part of most humans. There's no magic, just the ability to predict likely outcomes, and base it on previously observed behaviour.
I suspect you're more than bright enough to extrapolate from existing life experience and make a fair (if not 100% precise) stab at working out your reactions. Most of the time, mine are perfectly civil and often quite reserved. If someone hounds me, then yes, I can revert to more primitive behaviour; I have limits.

Physically attacking someone is illegal. As is harrassment. Harrassment is illegal as it is an emotional form of that physical response (a direct attack, which this was). Same as 'Happy Slapping' is an illegal physical attack, despite people saying 'Hey, it was just a joke'. It isn't.

I was being sarcastic, which you picked up on (I'm pretty sure you did anyway, you don't strike me an being an unperceptive person)

In the US, many say they just have the right to shoot people who do that, and let God sort it out.

I think 4 months in jail is a jolly little jape they've played on him. Can they get applause for that too? Or is it only a problem because you don't find it funny?
Harrassment is not a joke. It's actually a crime. For very good reasons (psychological torture). He made people suffer to a very large extent at a time when they're not psychologically capable of having strong defences.
The punishment is fitting, now he has to accept the jokes being played on him behind bars (he'll be out in a month of so with good behaviour, hopefully suitably chastened).

Except this isn't an overreaction. He got off pretty lightly for harassment, possibly stalking and a whole boat load of antisocial activity that would have earned him the time, AND a thorough kicking if he'd done it in person.
Last I checked, this was nothing to do with Conservative/Labour/Lib-Dem, and everything to do with a court of law.

A voice of sanity! Thank you.

No, he'd have done time (longer) for doing it outside the net. And received the due kicking as well.

The punishement is more lenient than it would have been without (if he'd been physically present, I suspect a thorough beating would have been administered, plus jail time for antisocial behaviour, vandalism of the memorial etc.).
You need to learn less about the internet, and more about society. Having a memorial dedicated to the life of someone you love is not an invitation to be trolled. It's an invitation to help alleviate suffering. You shouldn't need a moderator (same as if you leave your house door open to look under the hood of the car, it's not an invitation for everyone to be free to run in and burgle your house). There has to be a working social contract for a society to work.

Amendment to your car analogy: Pedestrians have the right of way. I have the right to mow them down where I find them because I'm driving a car so it doesn't hurt me.

These guys in question aren't on a 6 lane road in heavy traffic. They're the equivalent of a sleepy back road, on the edge of church ground coming to pay their respects to the departed. And you choose to say it's their fault when a car driver comes and mows them down for kicks for having the temerity to be out in the open.