When a person tells you it is your duty to [fill in the blank], that person is really trying to coerce you into relinquishing your future, for his or her own perceived benefit. Let’s say, for example, that someone says it is your duty to vote, that means you are being guilted into a collective that means to dominate everyone who is not in that collective, and various factions of that collective mean collectively to domain all of the other factions as well. To be sure, in this country, voting is voluntary. The choices, however, are constrained so that your voluntary choice has little effect on the domination that is planned for you. Think about some of the other events where you supposedly have a voluntary choice. You can volunteer as to whether you will fight or support war, but do you have any choice as to whether war will be conducted on your behalf? You can volunteer as to whether you pay taxes, but what do you see as the consequences for making that choice. You may voluntarily move your permanent residence to another country (I hear Somalia is lovely at this time of year), but how is that working out for Syrians these days. You may choose, for your own personal security, to ask the NSA to surveil everyone — realizing that such an idea may randomly bite you in a poorly guarded section of your anatomy. You may worship as you choose (if you don’t believe me, read up on Koresh and Waco — I acknowledge that in the real world choices must be made between spirituality and immoral dominance, but do we want the Federals to be making those choices on our behalf?) But in any event, when others say words like duty when all of the choices are immoral or have likely to be immoral outcomes, you are not mining in a seam of voluntaryism.