: Now, for me, Jury service is a sign and source of freedom, despite the fact that attendance is compuklsory.
This contradiction was not really explained by the following statements made. The explanation was along the lines of "well, the state is here so I may aswell try and do my bit in it" If the state is set up so that 'your bit' can not achieve the end you desire, or that in achieving it the means are undesirable then how is it 'good'? Sitting on a jury may allow you to influence a better outcome (or worse) within a framework given you by others, but why are you obliged to sit upon it?
: I would be less free, because instead of jury service being a means to secure my freedom, the courts would be an external source of constraint, something beyond me which controls me.
It would be self delusion to suppose that sitting on a jury a few times would secure your freedom were you to be subjected to the judgement of other jury sitters in the future. It would be self delusion to suppose you are controlling the courts by sitting in their jury system following their laws whilst perhaps squeeking one little voice into the barrage of inertia and 'society'. Rigged, not the way criminals suggest, but rigged.
: Now, surely if I am compelled to go, its not free, I don't have a free chocie? I'd say not, because freedom does not come *alone* from having teh capacity to freely choose everything (a free choice is a misnomer, certainly, I have a free chocie to leave a man lying in the gutter, I have a free chocie to waggle my private parts at small girls, etc.)
You actually do have those choices - you can do those things today - the choice exists, the constraint is *self* imposed, you decide not to do it because you think its wrong/fear of police etc etc. You are deciding.
: Reality and real world conditions determine our choices, much more that will does,
It is your will that becomes your choices in negotiating the 'real world'. if a brick falls on your foot you choose how to deal with the reality of it (cursing, going to doc, bandage it etc). You can choose not to eat, but reality is what it is and the consequences will arrive. You are still choosing.
: suffice to say 'I am individual, you have no claim on me' means you canleave people lying dying in teh gutter.
It does exactly that. Scary isnt it, having to accept responsibility for the consequences of choosing, however limited and however imposed by circumstance those choices can be. Its not, as some think, an easy way to live, a copout of responsibilitiy in the limited fashion most people consider responsibility, it is the highest form of it.
: According to Borg and gee 'What I do is right, so long as *I* choose it. The fact that it is *my* chocie is legitimation enough. Whatever *I* choose to do is right by me. Doing something is justification for doing itself in and of itself. What I do is right, because it is what I do.
Did either of us say "right". What you choose to do is what you choose to do, whether its eat too much meat, smoke, murder, plant trees or dance in mud - each has its consequences, each choice is heavily influenced by you, your influences and the circumstances presented - at no point is it not your choice.
When we argue that the non-aggression principle is a good one it is in recognition that when others attempt to remove your free choice by force that you can no longer be self directing and self responsible. Some people prefer to avoid both.
The 'meaning' is derived by your individual discriminatory values the standard for which is personal. People who want to earn millions do so because *they* want to. Poeple who want to save whales do so because *they* want to. Poeple who want a socialist world do so because *they* want to.