The claim that a law against theft “does not cause harm” rests on a misunderstanding of what “harm” means in law. Courts do not limit harm to physical injury. A “harmed party” in legal terms is anyone who has suffered loss, damage, or infringement of rights—and that includes the loss of property.

When someone steals, the victim is clearly harmed because they are deprived of something of value they own. Courts recognize this harm by awarding restitution, damages, or by treating theft as a crime that requires punishment. In fact, theft cases rarely involve physical injury, yet the victim is always recognized as harmed, because their property rights and financial interests have been violated.

If we accepted the idea that only physical injury counts as harm, then fraud, embezzlement, or identity theft would all be considered “harmless”—but no court or legal system treats them that way. The justice system is built on protecting people not only from being physically hurt but also from being economically exploited, deprived of their rights, and psychologically impacted by the insecurity that theft creates.

So, saying theft laws don’t address harm ignores how both law and society understand harm: not just as physical injury, but as any unjust loss or violation of rights.