Slashdot Mirror
The Constitution in Wartime
Findlaw has an excellent essay discussing the history of law in wartime. The author makes the point very elegantly that inter arma silent leges (usually translated "in time of war the law is silent", but I prefer "in the face of arms, the law is silent"). Richard Stallman has an essay on a similar theme, not quite as good, but still worth reading.
IAAA (I am an American), but I don't understand why we are at war--especially with Afghanistan. We were attacked by people who have never claimed responsibility. It is possible that all who were involved perished in the crashes. Our government and the major media want us to believe that Osama ibn Laden was responsible, despite the fact that he actually claims responsibility for his attacks. He is a guest of the Taleban, who has told us (since 9/xx) that they will turn him over upon receipt of conclusive evidence. The Taleban has offered to negotiate several times; meanwhile, Bush's claim that "we will use Diplomacy" remains untrue (he has rejected every offer). Bush refuses to turn over any evidence, citing "National Security"--does that mean that Americans would riot in the streets if they knew what was really happening? Now we are bombing the shit out of the poorest nation in the world because they are bound under their Holy Law to protect their guest. We slander them on TV with false stories about opium (which can't grow in a four-year drought...), while we are using neighboring Uzbehkistan--#2 worldwide in opium production--as an air base for our troop transports, just like we did with Laos/Cambodia during VietNam (search on google.com for Bo Gritz if this doesn't ring a bell).
Back to the topic, our politicians and lobbyists are shredding the Constitution with the full support of the misled American majority. This wasn't in the EULA. I wish to move to a country with more civil liberties, such as Germany.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Ayn Rand (an Objectivist, rather than a libertartian, but often the source of many individual's interest in libertarian philosophy) also wrote on this subject. The idea is that principles do not apply in emergency situations, because the situation can't be forseen (If it could, it would not be an emergency).
The classic example is standing on the shore and seeing someone in the middle of a lake fall out of a boat and start to drown. You want to help them (even though you have no obligation to do so), but have no boat. There is a boat tied up to the dock, but it isn't yours. Do you take it without permission for the time it takes to save the poor victim?
Rand wrote that doing so was permissible and not a violation of Objectivist principles for several reasons. Under the circumstances, any rational person would want to be saved, even at great cost to themselves (i.e. a rescue bill). So the person drowning is unlikely to protest. This probably goes for the owner of the boat as well, though with a much weaker argument: he might argue that he should not be inconvenienced because of someone else's misfortune and wouldn't change his mind if he were drowning, because he avoids such risks.
So we have a situation where someone is harmed (loses use of his boat for a while, perhaps JUST when he needs it the most), and someome can be reasonably expected to be willing to pay for their rescue. Also, the would-be rescuer would likely be willing to compensate for the use of the boat (and risk not getting reimbursed by the victim) -- this is but one of the risks he takes on.
The only problem here is the lack of a contract with the owner of the boat!
In tort situations (harms caused outside of a contract, for example, a child breaking a neighbor's window with a ball), the guiding principle has been restitution. Here, an emergency results in the willful (as opposed to negligent) commitment of a tort. But clearly the motive is not malice (i.e. the rescuer does not WANT to deprive the boat owner of use of his boat).
So, the rational solution is to let the would-be rescuer chose between letting the victim drown, or compensate the boat owner for the tort he is about to commit on his property. Presumably the cost of this restitution can be estimated -- surely the boat owner can't argue a great opportunity loss if the boat is not kept secure: anyone could easily steal it and thus the owner couldn't argue for the value of it's constant availability. If the recuer takes the boat, and can't agree with the boat owner as to what reasonable compensation should be, the matter is settled by the courts.
The important ideas here are (a) the freedom (but NOT obligation) to chose to commit an otherwise tort in a time of crisis, (b) restitution after the fact. A more subtle idea is that opportunity costs can't be effectively compensated due to torts commited in emergencies.
Of course, IAAL (I Am A Libertarian), but IANAL (I am not a lawyer). NO PART OF THIS POST SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.
You could've hired me.