Rothbard said that in libertarian law the violation of property is the normative factor deciding what is a crime and what is not a crime. But I have a question -since money is property and it circulates everywhere then anycrime that involves money involves all members of society who are using money. And since violent crime indirectly involves money also all crime involves all members of society. Is this correct?
money circulates just means that a given unit will at one time be in someones cash ‘hoard’ and then later … it will be in another persons hoard and so on. it is never out of a hoard and instead in some free-floating-circulating-area…
oh, so what I think you’re saying is that if I stole money from someone then that is only a crime to them at that particular instance because their money is something that is with them in that particular instance and not with anyone else?
sure. that much is a fact…
i can imagine arguments purporting to demonstrate damage to 3rd parties and ‘society’ ; but it must be obvious that such arguments could not hope to have anything like the level of force, and immediate clarity that the understanding of the damage to the directly affected individual enjoys.
No. What you have is a non sequitur (your conclusion doesn’t follow) and a composition fallacy (what happens to one happens to all).