I like it, but I have two issues.
First of all, it is possible to commit an act of aggression against a community, and therefore "society" (depending on your definition). For instance, as homeowners are entitled to "quiet enjoyment of their property", certain limited & reasonable noise ordinances may be preferable to forcing each aggrieved homeowner to sue a potential abuser. Violation of such could be described as a crime against the community, as the individual victims likely will not be represented in court (although hopefully they initiated the complaint). That does not mean the act of aggression is any less real, nor does it necessarily mean that such an approach is inappropriate for minor but common torts.
Of course I agree that the overwhelming "crimes against society" are in fact
mala prohibita offenses, but I still found that something of an over-simplication. The criterion is whether an act of aggression against right exists, not whether the victim is possibly definable as "the community".
Secondly, I find defining negative rights as "life, liberty, and property" to be at either vague, or circular. If
liberty is meant in the most basic terms, the definition is vague and incomplete.
If, however, "liberty" is meant exhaustively, then this definition becomes circular, as it essentially attempts to define the sphere of right as itself: "the sphere of right extends to all such things as are our liberties".
"Well, what exactly are our liberties?"
"They are things which fall within the sphere of right."
This is why I prefer to define right recursively, as it avoids the chicken-and-egg issue AND being circular. (Note that the difference between recursion and circularity is subtle, but immensely significant all the same.)
So, the question isn't whether "an act violates an individual's life, liberty, and property", it's whether an act infringes upon another's ability to act with equivalent freedom.
I know it's just a flow chart, but still.
By the way, I was playing Assassins Creed 4, and the main character totally
nailed my definition of right. While my definition is ultimately Jeffersonian in inspiration, as far as I am aware I'm the first to insist on the definition being properly recursive (possibly due to recursion being an under-appreciated technique in the era before computer science). I may be wrong on that point, however, because the recursive nature of rights and freedom is
exactly what the writers of the game had their character express so perfectly. Either somebody
has expressed it as I do and I'm unaware, or such a definition naturally appeals to programmers etc.