I think that what one really has to differentiate is in active vs passive recognition. We may have a passive duty to recognize others rights insofar as not to abridge them, but that isn't the same as an active recognition of enablement or agreement. I think that's where a lot of social justice warriors get things hopelessly confused in that they equate a right with an active obligation on the part of others for every right. This is just simply false. The only active duty we have as individuals is to act within the proper expression of our own rights ie via expression which neither abridges another's rights nor implies an active duty on their part. The latter is called coercion.

Well said.

As it relates to others,my birthrights begin where yours end, usually at my property line, or arms length.

I like to look at as a difference between freedom and liberty. Outside of a society and even in a society, there is no duty to not act and one can choose to act but may not have liberty to do so due to governing bodies such as property owners or established governments. l am free to cross into any state without getting permission but may not have liberty to do so because of an arrest warrant, needing to pay a toll for highway use, etc.
In the case of national boarders whether geographical, fence, or wall then one is in the equivalent of a prison where one needs permission to both leave and enter. One cannot enter Mexico or return from Mexico without permission, just as the Berlin wall had necessity of getting permission to cross a boarder to of the prison. People continue to try to freely cross the southern boarder without permission but are stopped because they have no liberty to do so.

You are saying the same thing as I said, except using the word obligation instead of duty. If you look in any dictionary or thesaurus, those words are almost interchangeable.
Trying to impose a hyper-restrictive use of language does not help persuade anyone who disagrees with you. It even irritates people like me who 100% agree with you on the principle.

Read your history. Take a look at the great Seal of the United states that Benjamin Franklin designed. You will see the Tablets and Moses crossing the Reed Sea.

Do you think Enlightenment principles sprang out of nowhere? That suddenly reason was invented in France, England and Europe?. Do you think Baruch Spinoza didn't get his ideas from the thousands of years of reasoning and case law of the Hebrew's Talmud?

The philosophers of that time may have criticized the institutions of Religion but not the principles.

Take a look at the seal of all the Universities of that time and you will see Hebrew letters and words. Fluency in both Latin and Hebrew was required. Go find out why. .

There are no duties, period. That includes "negative" duties. "Duty" is often confused with obligationd specified under law.

The "negative" aspect is important, but is not a "duty". "As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." -- from "Man's Rights". That is choice you make to be moral for reasons you understand, not "duty".

Whether or not you agree with a legal requirement to serve on a jury with or without qualification, there is no moral duty to serve others. Serving on a jury may be a rational, moral activity to help ensure justice under a proper government, which is in your self interest, but not without qualification. Helping others is not a moral primary. The "right" to a trial by jury and other procedures designed for justice under criminal law is a civil right defining required procedures and limitations on government, not a "duty".

A moral right to freedom of action does not cease to exist when someone demands their permission for it. Morality does not become no longer morality. Statism prevents moral behavior.

The lexicon you linked to defines the meaning of duty. But the word, as I used it with the adjective "negative", is used in other ways. What is a better word for the necessity of NOT getting in the way of other peoples rights? Perhaps obligation? are they not synonymous?

Collectivist/altruisitic government entitlements are not rights. "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." -- Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights". Rights are not duties.

Trials by jury are part of the means of implementing a proper government for a proper purpose, not a "duty". There are no "duties". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Right. 'Rights' and 'duty' are contradiction in terms. A right is a freedom of action without need for permission. Once a requirement of permission to act, then act is no longer a right.

“Rights are a moral concept, not a duty.“
But there is jury duty imposed by this right. This right requires duty of others.

This country was founded on Enlightenment ideas emphasizing reason and individualism, not the Hebrews or commandments.

That form of government is based on principles, not a pragmatist "what works". Government monopoly on the use of force is to be used for specific purposes protecting the rights of the individual, not a vague "minimum use of force".

The right to a certain kind of trial is a civil right, not a philosophical right. It presupposes a proper kind of government for the proper purpose, and is a means of implementation to try to ensure justice under criminal prosecution.

There are no "duties". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Political "entitlements" are only one form of the fallacy.

There are no "duties". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Others have a duty to be responsible for themselves. Just as we have a right to express our earned individual rights, without interference from others. When it is for mutual benefit and equal responsibility to interact or work together, then both parties are expressing their individual rights. Anything that leads to collectivism is evil.

No. But collectively they can.
The CONTRACT of living in a social society my come with duties, in order to ENFORCE rights.

This would be things like:
- Jury Duty
- Required Military Duty
- Paying Taxes.

But this is the CORE difference. No individual gets a direct ability to impose a duty on others. Doing so, makes the liable (for damages, losses, etc).
Although, in order to protect the rights of ALL Citizens, duties can be imposed by the duly elected government to make sure things function properly.

the more interesting question to me: Does our government OWN us, CONTROL us, or WORK FOR us?
Because there is abundant evidence that governments are behaving as though they OWN and CONTROL us, and very little to show they WORK FOR us.
Hence the united states, with an income tax, can borrow from other countries, and point out that they can always increase the income tax (A form of slavery, if any).

We have moved the Overton Window way too far!

Duty or responsibility comes in after one accepts the compact/contract of Civilized society that respects individual rights. If you live alone outside of society you have no duty.

The only way to assure your own rights (from nature and nature's god) is to respect other's rights and to have a minimal use of force (police or govt) to protect from those who cheat.

What the compact/contract contains depends on the society. The one that works best is to observe the principles of the Hebrew society which the US was modeled after.

Do not murder,
Don not Rob or Steal (Sorry no socialist redistribution by force)
Manage Jealousy and don't covet the assets or spouse of anything of your neighbor,
respect your parents and your history,
Don't put respect for earthly authority over your natural rights (which is respect for nature and Nature's god),
Don't bear false witness (lie in court or in gossip - libel, defamation ) and the one people always forget that the Hebrews contributed to the world... the weekend.
Stop working and take a break once a week to be with family, community and connect to nature, God or whatever floats your spiritual boat.

What about the right to fair trail by jury?

This is a great observation. The right to a fair trial definitely would place a positive duty on a jury and such.

No........ "Need" does not create "obligation."