Let's also assume that A was convicted as a criminal by all reputable courts. Can B legitimately break into C's property in order to punish A?
C becomes criminal too.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
“C becomes criminal too.”
Not necessarily. If C is asleep on his multi-acre property, and A hops over the fence to hide, C is not protecting A.
No, although if A's crimes were significantly heinous B could take the risk that no one would be bothered by his minor tresspass. C would probably face significant sanction from his neighbours for this action though (shunning?), unless A's crimes were minor
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
Why should C become criminal? Does a person have a duty to extradite criminals from his property? Why should his property suffer from trespassing of enforcement agencies?
Eugene: Let's also assume that A was convicted as a criminal by all reputable courts. Can B legitimately break into C's property in order to punish A?
Isn't this called harboring a fugutive? We morally invaded Afghanistan on this premise.
Gero: “C becomes criminal too.” Not necessarily. If C is asleep on his multi-acre property, and A hops over the fence to hide, C is not protecting A.
Then A need only obtain C's permission to enter to arrest B.
I'd say that harboring a fugitive is criminal, and so an agent of B would be justified in trespassing on C's property to seize A.
A hurts B and takes refuge in C's property. What can B do?
So you're essentially asking if A can use the property of C as a "safe zone" to help him legitimize the aggression against B? Why, in this case, would C not be considered guilty of aggression as well?
If C consents, he is guilty of assisting aggression. If C only consents because he is unaware of the aggression, A is committing fraud against C. If B is to use force to punish A, I suppose he can legitimately aggress against C's property as much as he could against that of A, with A being liable for the damages.
He doesn't have that duty, no, but if he doesn't consent to A being there, then A is aggressing against him as well. Again, A should bear responsibility if his use of C's property results in any damage from B (who you have implied has the right to seek legal retribution from A).
I'd be interested to know if Rothbard has ever touched on the harboring of criminals, specifically.
I think he would have that duty (to extradite), but not a legal obligation.
What is a "duty" if not a legal obligation?
"What is a "duty" if not a legal obligation?"
There might be provisions worked into contracts with PDAs/DROs, or even with your housing contract, that if you are found to be harboring individuals who have been found guilty of a crime by a reputable court, you will agree to hand over the suspect or face certain fines.
I don't think harboring a criminal is a criminal act in itself, but I could see it being grounds for being ostracized by others.
That sounds like a legal obligation to me.
"That sounds like a legal obligation to me"
Only because C has a legal obligation to abide by his contracts. If there is another person, D, who has also done nothing wrong, and has not signed any such contracts, I don't think he would be violating the NAP by giving asylum to a known criminal.
The question is, does the victim of aggression have a right to use force, either directly, or through the use of a DRO/PDA, to enter the property of another innocent individual in order to apprehend a third individual who has been found guilty by reputable courts of a crime. I believe that the answer is no, but that this is likely to be a provision in PDA/DRO contracts up front, that customers of the PDA/DRO will agree not to obstruct the investigation of a third party (with appropriate disinterested, separate arbitration groups supervising the proceedings).
To me, though, I don't see how C has violated the NAP by voluntarily giving food and shelter to another individual, no matter what that individual may have done.
Edit:
And if C has not violated the NAP, of course, then there is no call to use aggression against him.
"That sounds like a legal obligation to me" Only because C has a legal obligation to abide by his contracts. If there is another person, D, who has also done nothing wrong, and has not signed any such contracts, I don't think he would be violating the NAP by giving asylum to a known criminal.
I understand that.
The question is, does the victim of aggression have a right to use force, either directly, or through the use of a DRO/PDA, to enter the property of another innocent individual in order to apprehend a third individual who has been found guilty by reputable courts of a crime.
Yes, that is the question.
I don't see how C has violated the NAP by voluntarily giving food and shelter to another individual, no matter what that individual may have done.
I'm not so sure one way or the other. From the thread linked below, here are some scenarios to consider:
A. Bob and I are strolling down the street. Bob says to me: "Hey look at Mike over there, I think I'll shoot him in the face for no reason, let me borrow your pistol for a minute." If I hand Bob my pistol, knowing full well that Bob is going to murder Mike, am I liable for the crime? B. Bob shows up at my house and says "Hey, I murdered my wife last night, the cops are after me, can I hide in your house?" If I say yes, and let him hide in my house, am I liable in some way for his crime? What if the parents of the wife (heirs of the right of restitution) come to my house, having found that Bob is hiding there, and demand that I produce Bob. Do I have a legal obligation to produce Bob? C. Bob and I are planning a bank robbery. Bob is going to be the gun-man, and I'm going to be the get-away driver. We carry out the robbery. Am I liable for it? D. I pay Bob $100 to murder my wife (Bob's a cheap hitman). He does. Am I liable for the murder?
A. Bob and I are strolling down the street. Bob says to me: "Hey look at Mike over there, I think I'll shoot him in the face for no reason, let me borrow your pistol for a minute." If I hand Bob my pistol, knowing full well that Bob is going to murder Mike, am I liable for the crime?
B. Bob shows up at my house and says "Hey, I murdered my wife last night, the cops are after me, can I hide in your house?" If I say yes, and let him hide in my house, am I liable in some way for his crime? What if the parents of the wife (heirs of the right of restitution) come to my house, having found that Bob is hiding there, and demand that I produce Bob. Do I have a legal obligation to produce Bob?
C. Bob and I are planning a bank robbery. Bob is going to be the gun-man, and I'm going to be the get-away driver. We carry out the robbery. Am I liable for it?
D. I pay Bob $100 to murder my wife (Bob's a cheap hitman). He does. Am I liable for the murder?
In none of these cases have I been physically involved in the act of aggression, yet surely in at least some of these cases I am liable for the crime, no?
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/29038.aspx
Another related scenario:
Suppose Bob stole my TV. I have the right to trespass on Bob's property to retrieve my TV. If Bob stands in the doorway and won't let me in, I can righfully push him out of the way. But what if Bob's friend Mike is standing in the door blocking me from retrieving my stolen property? Can I push Mike out of the way?
If so, then what's the difference between pushing Mike out of the way to get back my TV and trespassing on Mike's property to take the fugitive Bob, who Mike is harboring?
Those are interesting cases to think about. I'm not sure how I feel about some of them, but at least on the last one (the hitman contract) I don't believe you would be guilty of anything. For the same reason that the hitman could not legally defend himself by saying "he paid me to (made me) do it", your offering him money to commit a crime would not be criminal in itself. I believe it is Walter Block who points out that such a contract, if for example the hitman took the money but decided not to go through with it, is non-binding, since a contract cannot be both legal and illegal at the same time.
So, you may be morally repugnant and socially ostracized for getting somebody to murder your wife, but you are not on the hook for the murder. Bob, then, is not only a cheap but a stupid hitman. He took the fall for you for only 100 dollars.
Or take case C. You may only be the getaway driver, but on whose roads are you driving? Is there any clause in the service contract for which abetting a robbery is a violation of terms? This may not only void your contract, making you a trespasser, but may even constitute an implicit attachment to the crime itself. It would depend on the terms of the contract.
In B, I don't think you would be legally obligated to produce Bob, unless again there were some clause in your home contract that you agreed to follow.
In A, no you are not liable for the crime. You did not pull the trigger. Of course a judge or jury may not know the subjective states of mind that led to your actions and may find you guilty because of how suspicious that chain of events was, but strictly speaking, if all the information was known, you did not commit any act of unprovoked aggression and would therefore not be guilty.
Because what if Bob said, "hey I want to shoot mike for no reason, let me see your pistol," and you said, "okay but its not loaded" but Bob didn't care and took the pistol and threw it really hard at mike? Can you still be liable for an unorthodox use of a pistol? And just because Bob said something doesn't mean you know for certain that he was serious about it. What if you weren't holding a pistol, but a rock, or a baseball, and Bob proceeded to take it and throw it at mike. The point is you aren't liable for the actions of others, even though, to be fair, your complicity (even stupidity) in each of these scenarios would probably end up in your paying higher premiums for insurance protection, much like a high incidence of car accidents, none of which are your fault, will still lead to paying high auto premiums.
I will admit that your TV scenario is a little murkier than the others.
I would say that, first of all, due to the potentially physical nature of "reposession" scenarios like the one you describe, it is unlikely that victims of theft will personally carry out the retrieval of their stolen merchandise (though they would be legally within their rights to do so). Probably what would happen is armed guards would show up at Bob's place with as much publicly visible displays of legitimacy as possible. Signs posted on their vehicles explaining what is happening and why armed guards are invading Bob's property; urls pointing people to a full write up of the case, including the names of the judges and DROs that found Bob guilty of theft and the evidence for his guilt. The retrieval agency would have every incentive not to look guilty themselves.
Therefore, if Mike is standing in the way behind Bob, though he may not have been guilty of theft himself, he is willingly putting himself in public opposition to a reputable judge's decision. Furthermore, he is setting himself up as an obstacle to stolen merchandise, which may not be a crime, again, but may open him up to social ostracism. The question would be asked, "Why, Mike, are you aligning yourself with a known criminal? Why are you keeping the victim of theft from his property? What do you have to gain from this? This is suspicious."