This (the idea of an aggregate harm from not enforcing the rules even though there might not be any harm in a specific case) seems similar to the idea of moral hazard in economics, which is the idea that if someone is insured against loss (protected from consequences), they will tend to expose themselves to greater investment risk, counting on their insurance to protect them from losses. What winds up happening is other people bearing the costs of your risky behavior, though in your particular case it might not come to that, more people taking those kinds of risks leads to more aggregate losses.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
