“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?
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?