[WS:] One does not need to look very far to find examples of these attitudes toward "public duties" - the jury selection in the US courts. When I lived in Baltimore, I had the dubious honor of being called for the jury duty every ear (one time a year is the maximum allowed under MD law.) Not showing up carried the risk of being fined. The procedure involved waiting in the jury room until a batch of potential jurors were called by a judge for the selection process. Prior to selection, the judge asked if anyone wished to be excluded (valid reasons included prejudice or religious convictions), and all those who said yes were queried by the judge and the attorneys, and then typically excused. In a typical trial, about a third of potential jurors asked to be excused (reasons were not stated publicly) but I was told of instances when most potential jurors asked to be excused.
Based on my casual observations, most people asking to be excused were middle age folks, who more likely had jobs and lives, and thus did not appreciate the prospect of spending several days in court. That in fact was what many people were saying in casual conversations. I have no way of knowing the effect (if any) of this "self de-selection" process on the composition of the potential jury pool, but it is illustrative of what game theorist call the free rider problem in the procurement of public goods.
The problem basically boils down to the fact that people try to avoid bearing personal costs of participation in the procurement of a good that they will get anyway, because it is public.
Wojtek