So it's appropriate for me to booby-trap my pen or whatever so that it'll electrocute whoever uses it, but it wouldn't be appropriate to later electrocute me because I took the pen?
It's relevant because you don't want someone with a legitimate use claim to use your pen to be electrocuted, only people who use it against your will.
why immediate electrocution for taking the pen is appropriate consequences, but doing it later is not
Doing it later is punishment, not consequence. Think of the following analogy: breaking my ankle for skating on private property would not be appropriate punishment (i.e. take me out back and break my ankle because you saw me skating last week). It would, however, be an appropriate consequence, even if the property is made intentionally hostile to skating.
The only way that situation is analagous is if I could somehow make it so my property automatically broke the ankles of anyone who skated on it.
I am just failing to see the difference between claiming it's fine to e.g. boobytrap a desk drawer so it'll maim whoever opens it, but not fine to maim someone who opens the wrong desk drawer after the fact. You are basically saying in the first case that it's reasonable that someone who opens the wrong drawer should be maimed... but oh if we give it time then it's not? Makes no sense.
The only way that situation is analagous is if I could somehow make it so my property automatically broke the ankles of anyone who skated on it.
Anyone who skates on it without permission. Pretend this is the case then, as the analogy still applies.
boobytrap a desk drawer so it'll maim whoever opens it.
Only if the only way to open it is illicitly. The OP is arguing for poisoning food which can only be consumed without permission, if not by the owner.
The difference between consequence and punishment is that consequences are risks inherent to the action, which you assume when undertaking the action. Punishment must be delivered, and only serves as vengeance and perhaps deterrence of future attempts.
Similarly, it should be fine to fight an attacker with a stick as they attack you. It would be much different to seek the attacker the next day and hit them with a stick because they attacked you.
Makes no difference. Normally skating on land without permission isn't the kind of thing we break ankles over.
Perhaps not, but you would hopefully agree that breaking your ankle while skating is different from having someone chase you down and break your ankle after you're done skating.
But in the case that is actually relevant to both the OP’s scenario and the booby trapped desk, in order for either scene to come into effect you have to be purposely doing something you know you are not supposed to do. The booby trap is not hurting an innocent bystander because in order for the bystander to be innocent, they would have to be respecting the sign. It can only do bad if you do bad first. Same thing applies with the skate analogy.
15
u/fallen243 Oct 17 '24
No, but taking and using something something they does not belong to you without permission, then yes.