Counterfeiting of government money is a crime

If someone can print money they can buy assets (such as land) which is a detriment to the rest of the market because those products then become more expensive. It can be argued that counterfeiting is not a crime because it involves only our own property and is not aggressive, it does not affect others, so the argument goes. But if we have a need for a state (to protect property rights) then this argument begins to fall down, at least as far as the counterfeiting of money is concerned. If we counterfeit money then we have the ability to buy assets which is to the detriment of others in the market, this is not the same as counterfeiting other goods because this might be defended as a natural right, which is not the case with money.

If the state chooses to print money this is normal and consistent and not counterfeiting and so then not a crime. It is when typical non-state citizens print state money that it can be argued that a crime has occurred, because prices increase for everyone else. If the state has a right (and a need) to exist and print money then the counterfeiting of that money is crime because it destroys the ability of the state to print money, which we have accepted is a requirement, for property rights.

Counterfeiting money is a crime since the state has a right provide a stable means of exchange and to print money is an affront to their ability to do this. It is a crime because other people cannot legally print money and yet state-money will always be able to purchase goods which means that other people are being stolen from, in their inability to print money. If the state can print money then no one else can otherwise those who cannot print money will lose out. If there is state money then counterfeiting is a crime.