Allowance Law refers to a legal concept where, if a person or entity is unable to reasonably prevent some catastrophe or event which victimizes them, they are said to have allowed the event to happen, and therefore they are not able to claim grievance. The law is relatively recent, and is not available in all jurisdictions, however, it is theorized that the law is intended to save time and eliminate legal expenses for the states, as a means of the state to absolve itself of responsibility, etc. It also based in part upon the political philosophies of Chantry, who posited that by creating a culture of self-sufficiency among the populace with regards to crime against person or property, that it would also lead to elimination of other state-sponsored help, such as the dole.
The law is based on two fundamental principles:
- What one allows will continue.
- One must reasonably make attempts to prevent or avoid actions against their person or property, otherwise they can be said to have allowed the action through negligence.
Usage
The law typically applies to crimes against persons or property, but its effectiveness and breadth of utility are dependent upon the strength of the argument. There are also instances where the law is overridden by some other statute; an example of this is the disallowance of theft from bazaars and marketplaces. Some examples:
- A man attacks another man. The other man fought back, but sustained injury from the altercation. The second man did not make adequate preparation for the setback (he did not obtain sufficient combat training, etc.), and because of this negligence, allowed the injury to occur.
- Someone steals goods from a shopkeeper. The shopkeeper did not take adequate measures to prevent the theft, therefore, the theft was allowed to happen.
Complications
The law can ultimately become quite muddied because of the vagueness in the term must reasonably make attempts to prevent. Events which are beyond the control of the subject are typically given leeway. For example, a man who is sick from the Black Sam, having been robbed while in a weakened state, would not be held liable for negligence, as the illness could not have been prevented.
Chained events are also where the law falls apart, or at least gets complicated. One example might be if a man gets robbed and beaten by an initial antagonist. Under the basic tenets of the law, the victim would be considered negligent for not taking measures to strengthen himself against such an occurrence. However, now, in a weakened state from the first beating, a second antagonist comes and takes advantage of this weakened state, and robs and beats him, does this mean the victim allowed it to happen? This flaw in the philosophy would subsequently rely upon the strength of the argument. If it is argued that the victim would have otherwise been able to to thwart the second attack, and that argument is accepted, the victim would be granted restitution for the second attack, and so on.
The law, being entirely rooted in corruption, does not apply with regard to injurious action against the state.