A jury duty draft is no more moral than a military draft. It is coercion, pure and simple. An alleged “potential for abuse” is no excuse for the imposition of involuntary servitude on a random subset of the population. Furthermore, jury “duty” opens the door to its own set of abuses.

As to who should pay the jurors, they should be paid out of the same government accounts that pay the police, judges and other employees of the legal system. We should expect prospective jurors to meet certain qualifications for rendering verdicts, just as prospective candidates for other law enforcement occupations must meet certain qualifications for their respective roles.

And exactly WHO will pay the jury? Furthermore, what expectations would I be able to place on a juror I paid for?

The potential for abuse is why jury DUTY is selectively imposed by a draft from the citizenry.

FWIW -- the easiest way to avoid serving on an actual jury is to tell the attorneys conducting voir dire that you "are really looking forward to sitting on the jury" -- I guarantee that you will be excused in less than 60 seconds!

The point is that one should assume that responsibility because he understands it and chooses to as a value to his own life, not out of 'duty'.

Oh you hit a nerve! One has a responsibility to take care of oneself. And let's take that a bit further. Not since I was 18 years old have I given another person the 'right' to tell me what I can or cannot do! I have been responsible for me! This subject came up in my home yesterday. I made my point!

Well, in a way, that's true. That is, if you see your neighbor make the swing, you are not obligated to see whether his fist lands on your nose or not, his swing entitles you to retaliate (that is, punch him, or something). But it's still a good illustration, a kind of metaphor that brings a clear image into somebody's mind.

Indeed it is important to identify such profound differences. As usual, you continue to illustrate the importance of the correct philosophical underpinnings to progress in science and engineering. Thank you.

It's more than connotation. It's fundamental, with different philosophies on different sides of whether it is negative. The Big 10 religionists here, especially those who 'downvote' Ayn Rand, do not see it as negative.

As Ayn Rand observed, "there is a profound difference which people [in general] sense, but seldom identify". It's important to identify it.

As ewv pointed out, Ayn Rand and other philosophers have a much more specific definition of duty than the general population. Duty has a far more negative connotation in the Gulch than it does outside the Gulch.

As a threat and physical imposition it ends a lot farther away than 'beginning of nose'!

"Duty" is the topic. That is why the article "Causality Versus Duty" is important to understand why one should abstain from violating rights in contrast to 'duty'.

Thank you for stating it so clearly, ewv.!

Thank you for stating it so clearly.

About right. There is an old saying, "The right to swing your arm ends where your neighbor's nose begins."

Well, perhaps "duty" was the wrong word. But you get the point, I hope.

You would on those grounds upvote yourself if you could, not a bad post. You can downvote a post for being illogical, unresponsive, or not contributing to the discussion and you can report a personal attack violating forum guidelines (and civil behavior) with the 'flag' link.

It is generally accepted in a package-deal because ethics itself is accepted as 'duty' from the religious background.

There are many here who do not Understand what is meant by what is said. Thank you for pointing out this distinction.

I find it difficult to communicate with people who respond from their own interpretation and are unwilling despite explanations to understand what is meant.

For instance, as you can see on this thread, the reaction to the mention of anything that smacks of "Religion" is to demean and reject everything said and sometimes the person saying it.

. Instead of processing what is meant and having a rational discussion with logical refutation of what they believe is incorrect or moving the conversation into a learning and sharing experience, it becomes an irrational fight to prove the "Wrongness" of what they rejected out of hand.

Denial replaces actual proof.

Hence my retort of trying to open that person's mind and pointing out the bias and prejudice which prevents what is said from getting through to their brain to parse its meaning much less coming to the point of understanding. . Likely That person has not even read what was written.

But even the idea of a rejection filter being in place is rejected because of their "conviction" that they do not have a bias or prejudice. They believe themselves to be perfectly "rational" and can quote what they believe Ayn Rand meant.

Finally if their second rejection of rational superiority is not accepted they resort to "guidelines" to protect their misunderstanding by claiming a violation of speech protocols.

That is why I insist that the person is only looking for agreement with their opinion at that stage.
Is that any different from the religious they despise saying "Reject this blasphemy and repent".or crying "Heresy" and refusing to listen?

Only in the same sense as dealing with criminals imposes a “positive duty” on policemen. There should not be any such thing as “jury duty” in a free society. Jurors should be selected from those who voluntarily choose to be on a jury. And they should be compensated for their time, since they are assisting in the performance of a proper government function.

I read the article. Hence the comment. The article prefers Obligation over duty.
The nuances on words are tough, but I get the accuracy issue. I am willing to say Obligation instead of duty.
The challenge is during communications with others (like myself before) who did not have the nuanced difference between the two words.

You could be having a completely different conversation than you think you are having. Communication is NOT just what was said, but how it is interpreted. My favorite example of Marc Anthony's Oration over Caesars grave. He did not say one bad word about Brutus, and yet turned a crowd of Brutus supporters against Brutus. There is what is SAID, what is MEANT, and what is UNDERSTOOD. There is where AI will struggle for some time. Spelling certain words instead of saying them, or using a word that rhymes.

So, to make sure we are on the same page, where do these things fall on the Duty/Obligation scale:
- Jury Duty
- Stopping for a Police Officer
- Stopping for a red light
- Being asked to move your car that is blocking someones driveway, but clearly on a public street.
- Paying Property Taxes

Seriously... Thank you. As others read this, they will learn as well...

Wrapping yourself in martyrdom is not a rational argument. Excellent.
Bertrand Russell made a similar statement-
Victimhood does not confer virtue.

Decisions. An angry post may be directed at a post of mine.
Should I give it a down-vote for being wrong, illogical, and for bad spelling?
Or, should it get an up-point for giving me the pleasure of giving gratuitous advice (as follows)?
Anger may have its place, by all means put your anger in writing, but send the letter or press send only after an interval.

The poet from old Persia, Omar Khayyam, wrote:
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it."

I don't think 95% of the population would make such a distinction amongst duty, obligation, and responsibility, but if that is the accepted philosophical definition of duty, then it is indeed different and an anti-concept.

Did you read the article? This is a matter of understanding basic concepts and distinctions, not preference for a word.

You should accept and practice the principles of individual rights based on your understanding of why they are true, not a duty to submit without regard to the meaning and consequences of what you do, as if you have no moral choice.

If enough people don't, then we do have a "horde", and if they accept it as 'duty', then we have both a herd and a horde -- and a herd following a master cannot be a moral society either.

When criminals violate rights they should be prosecuted and punished by a proper government representing those who do understand as a right of self defense, not protect the criminals.

'Duty' is the wrong word. A "negative duty" to not do something is still a 'duty', and 'duty' as such is not the moral approach https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1970.... But that does not mean not to accept, based on your own understanding in principle, the moral obligation not to violate others' rights.

Ayn Rand's characterization of "duty" in the article as "the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest" is not arbitrary. It is the philosophical use of the term, exemplified most openly by Kant.

Common confusions of "duty" with 'obligation' or 'responsibility' are a deadly package deal instilling 'duty' as the meaning of valid concepts, even though most people sense an unnamed difference.

When someone says something like "rights imply duties", or the package deal form that frequently appears in political promotions as an open-ended "rights imply responsibilities", watch out for what is being put over to get you to accept a way of thinking about military conscription, welfare statism, submission to bureaucracy, and the whole ideology of collectivism or theocracy.

Getting rid of collectivism and altruism requires getting rid of the anti-concept 'duty', with a full understanding of why.