Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Military

Automatic Selective Service Registration Keeps the Threat of Conscription Alive

If you oppose the draft, you should oppose the measures that would make it easier to implement too.

Agustina Vergara Cid | 9.2.2026 10:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Several uniformed service members wearing camouflage pants and tan combat boots stand in formation. | Photo: Ilia Torlin/Dreamstime.
(Photo: Ilia Torlin/Dreamstime.)

This December, selective service registration for eligible young men becomes automatic nationwide. This might not seem like a big deal, as it merely automates an already mandatory process that many states had in place. Rather than requiring men to register online or by mail, the government will use existing databases, such as Social Security records, to add men ages 18 to 26 to a pool of candidates if conscription becomes necessary.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D–Pa.) said the move will save "taxpayer dollars" and described it as a bureaucratic improvement. But this is not simply paperwork. It's a remnant of the military draft and a reminder that the government reserves the option to dispose of young men's lives.

America hasn't had a military draft since 1973. But selective service registration has survived, on and off, throughout history. It keeps the threat of conscription alive—even though most Americans have long opposed the military draft. A May 2026 Overton Insights poll found that 66 percent would oppose a military draft under President Donald Trump. Many young men have historically expressed their opposition by refusing to register for the selective service, despite the penalties.

Automatic registration takes away that choice. As Reason's C.J. Ciaramella wrote in 2024, automatic registration "remov[es] young men's choice to engage in civil disobedience"— in effect, preventing young men from rebelling against potential conscription. And they have reasons to rebel.

Even leaving aside the constitutional arguments against conscription, the military draft is a profoundly immoral institution. It's anathema to America's founding promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The draft effectively tells young men that their lives belong to the state. During their conscription, young men must perform whatever the government requires while the state treats their lives as expendable. Our forefathers broke with the tradition of subordinating individuals to the state so they could live as they saw fit, free from government interference. Conscription is a direct affront to that principle. If sent to the battlefield, they may die or suffer severe physical and psychological harm.

They would endure all of this only to fight for a cause they may not share or even understand—one chosen by politicians in response to whatever they may deem an "emergency." If we had a military draft today, conscripted Americans could be forced to fight in the widely unpopular Iran war—a war that even its proponents have struggled to explain or justify.

Beyond the risk of death, draftees are forced to put their happiness on hold during their service. Career plans, education, romantic relationships, friendships, and other commitments are forcibly interrupted when men are drafted during some of their most formative years.

When discussing the draft in a 1967 lecture, the philosopher Ayn Rand laid out the reasons why this is particularly egregious at this point in a person's life. She explained that, when a draft is in place, young men are forced to live in fear and terror of being conscripted: "the terror of knowing that he can plan nothing and count on nothing, that any road he takes can be blocked at any moment by an unpredictable power, that, barring his vision of the future, there stands the gray shape of the barracks, and, perhaps, beyond it, death for some unknown reason in some alien jungle."

We haven't had a draft in over 50 years, and there aren't any known official plans to bring it back. But that threat still looms. There have been renewed calls for conscription, and it's an issue that has historically found some support across the aisle. Maintaining the selective service as an "emergency contingency" is a choice those in power continue to make.

And this choice preserves the possibility of the terror Rand described. Automatic registration removes all remaining friction between young men and the state's power to take control of their lives. If you oppose the draft, you should oppose the measures that would make it easier to implement, too.

 

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Strikes Without End

Agustina Vergara Cid is editorial manager at Reason.

MilitaryFreedomForeign PolicyConscriptionAyn RandPentagonDefense
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (41)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. JFree   2 months ago

    If you oppose conscription, then you support permawars financed by deficit spending. Like it or not - that is why we got rid of conscription and thus eliminated all opposition to permawar.

    1. Idaho-Bob   2 months ago

      I oppose the current sexist form of conscription. If you are/were never under threat of conscription, you shouldn't get to vote.

      1. JFree   2 months ago

        Ah yes - the social justice warrior opposing sexism and the 19th amendment. You must be a boomer.

        Opposing FEDERALIZED conscription is legitimately constitutional. Your BS is just the 1960's culture war on auto-repeat.

        1. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

          Accusing others of sexism while practicing ageism.

          1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

            And ironically he is the biggest boomer here.

        2. Idaho-Bob   2 months ago

          I have a son and a daughter. One is under threat of the draft, and one is not.
          Why does one benefit from all the freedoms without the potential cost?

          1. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

            Why do you benefit from roads you never built ? Medical breakthroughs you never developed ? Scientific theories you never studied ? Innovations you never invented ?

            1. BYODB   2 months ago

              You have made the case that women should be exempt from conscription, so I assume you are also against allowing women into the military right now today too?

              1. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

                I have made no such case. You have strawmanned that into existence all on your own. If anything, I am against ALL conscription in favor of volunteer service. I reject the notion above that I must pay some arbitrarily derived price individually to determine what I am allowed enjoy from society. Example: saying I can't vote because I didn't serve in the military is ridiculous. I belong to this society; I pay through my labor, in proxy of labor: taxes, and by contribution to the well ordered function and operation of this society.

                As for service, some will serve and some will not. I do not presume to dictate who can or cannot, male or female.

                1. BYODB   2 months ago

                  Say what you mean and you'll be misunderstood less often.

                2. JFree   2 months ago

                  I am against ALL conscription in favor of volunteer service.

                  And that is where libertarians find themselves incapable of understanding citizenship.

                  Aristotle described it as He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state. He described war itself as a deliberation by ALL citizens - not just an assembly - which implies an element of the militia itself deciding to 'muster' for a war. If they don't show up to do the fighting - there is no war and that will piss the hell out of an oligarchy that wants others to fight its wars. Non citizens do not have any of that power. But citizenship also involves a duty or responsibility imposed by themselves on themselves.

                  The notion that only a warrior class should run the polity - eg the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't fight - was for Aristotle the second stage of oligarchy. The third stage being the totally corrupted form where a smaller class of rulers who benefit from the state then turn the state into their personal pig trough - with the military elements of that class used to impose a tyranny on everyone else. Ultimately any notion of a state depending on voluntary service devolves into oligarchy.

            2. Idaho-Bob   2 months ago

              Both men and women benefit from all of those things. What's your point?

            3. DesigNate   2 months ago

              Holy non-sequiters Batman.

          2. JFree   2 months ago

            Again - the issue is about the federalization of conscription. That is the only reason you can view conscription per se as a "threat". ie becoming cannon fodder for a federal war over which neither you nor your kids nor apparently your representatives are even allowed to voice an opinion and about which your/kids vote is completely useless.

            Otherwise - conscription to a state militia is only going to be an annoyance or burden (with a local benefit since that muster service substitutes for taxes) and is not even dependent on a narrow age muster.

            Constitutionally, Congress has a DUTY to To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. That provision is the primary reason the Constitution exists (Shay's Rebellion).

      2. mad.casual   2 months ago

        That kind of talk will get you labeled a misogynist back to the dawn of recorded history.

        Not that that's really different from any other kind of talk from a penis-haver but that the conflicted stupidity of The Patriarchy, somehow, uniquely oppressing women back through "military age males", devshirme, and "first born males" (including livestock) is pretty pervasive.

    2. Agammamon   2 months ago

      Ujm, we had permawars funded by deficit spending when we still had the draft. That was what Vietnam, Korea, etc were.

      1. JFree   2 months ago

        Conscription has been federalized since 1906. Before then - Congress chose to abdicate its constitutional duty re militia thus eliminating the states ability to do that.

        We didn't have permawars financed by deficit spending until well AFTER Vietnam. The debt post-Vietnam was $480 billion - 31% of GDP - the lowest 'debt burden' post-WW2. IOW - WW2 debt was rolled over (not paid off) and post-WW2 deficits were lower than the amount needed to provide money supply. Hell we maintained a pseudo gold standard until 1971.

        From 1971 to 2003 we had a combo of wars financed by other countries (Gulf War), a massive post-Vietnam trauma about risk of boots on ground (Beirut), five rounds of defense spending cuts after the Cold War (normal in a normal country's perception of war), and a gradual perception change in what war means - giving money to MIC to make bombs and drop them via TV shows rather than risking any boots on ground or 'conscription'. By 2003, debt held by public (ie excluding trust fund) was 36% of GDP - so really very little change since 1974. ie deficits were mostly about providing money supply.

        Only since 2003 have we been in true permawar financed by spending money we don't have with no risk to Americans. With that deficit money going into inflating asset bubbles to reward the wealthy rather than going into goods inflation. And where really the main purpose of the permawars has been to trap ourselves in imperial overreach and permanently losing wars and now no ability to even arm ourselves - so that when the blowback hits - the American people will be much more cannon fodder than we in Vietnam or Korea.

        1. JFree   2 months ago

          That said - I agree that Korea and Vietnam were effectively a form of military Keynesian stimulus. But any true Keynesian prescription has a beginning date and an end date. It's not perma - unlike what we've had since 2003.

        2. Agammamon   2 months ago

          In other words - we funded those wars through deficit spending. While we still had conscription.

          1. JFree   2 months ago

            No but you're an Austrian school type aren't you.

  2. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

    They know who you are anyway, registered or not.

  3. BYODB   2 months ago

    Yeah, best of luck to the government if they did another draft. 18 year old's 80 years ago were, shall we say, more resilient than the 18 year old's of today and they aren't all going to be drone pilots based in Arizona. If it's a draft, they are bullet catchers, and I wonder how many of them could have an interaction with a drill sergeant without breaking out into tears.

    Still, it would be amusing to watch feminists suddenly be dead silent about equality.

    1. Bloodaxe   2 months ago

      People have been saying that shit about Americans for decades though. The Germans in both WW1 and WW2 thought we were going to be soft. Clearly they were wrong.

      1. BYODB   2 months ago

        The US military says slightly less than 25% of 'the youts' meet physical qualifications without waivers.

        Not that anyone would care about that in a draft, you get thrown in the meat grinder regardless.

        1. mad.casual   2 months ago

          Something like 75% of the colonists died of infection. Not everybody has to be equipped to ruck 70 lbs. 5 mi. to the front while sustaining enemy fire.

          Undecided as to whether wars would be faster or slower or more or less deadly if everyone involved were Simo Häyhä or Carlos Hathcock. Question is, who are we starting a land war with that isn't similarly (or worse) situated? Russia? The Germans? Denmark?

          1. BYODB   2 months ago

            That seems like a good point since mercenary armies can afford to have higher requirements for service than what is strictly needed.

            Also a valid point about Russia, although China does have an awful lot of soldiers for a purely numbers game. Fortunately, there is no way for them to walk here either.

            1. mad.casual   2 months ago

              Fortunately, there is no way for them to walk here either.

              Also, potshots from your front porch have much lower mental and physical qualifications.

      2. creech   2 months ago

        As did the Southern firebrands who thought they'd whip the soft Yankees in 90 days.

  4. Agammamon   2 months ago

    Reason is worried about Selective Service? Or is Reason avoiding making a bad take on Spain and Congo?

    What is Reason's stance on the 'net benefit' of fraudulent trucking schools getting people killed?

  5. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

    I would think voluntary service would be preferable to giving guns to people who don't want to be there. Just look at all the russians defecting / surrendering to ukraine.

    1. Agammamon   2 months ago

      Humanity is very good at getting people to fight when they don't want to fight.

    2. Gregdn   2 months ago

      Look at all the Ukrainian men being Shanghaied off the streets.

  6. Gregdn   2 months ago

    I was forced into the Army in 1971. At that time, I hated the Draft with all my being.
    Many years on though, I began to think our military might not use its troops so cavalierly if we brought back the draft.

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      Of course today, having lived through (or around) decades of war since, wars longer than Vietnam and having lost fewer troops than Vietnam, there's a pretty good case to be had that we were more cavalier with troops then than we are now.

    2. JFree   2 months ago

      One of the things that happened post-Vietnam is that we spend money like a drunk - and kill foreigners by the shitload - but we don't actually waste troops lives very much.

      War is now a videogame - not Walter Cronkite on TV talking about relatives. The blood is someone else's. There is no public discussion. When blowback finally does happen it will be ugly as hell (and unfortunately well-deserved).

    3. MoreFreedom   2 months ago

      I'd agree with you except that the fortunate sons of the political class always seem to avoid the draft, and if not, always get stateside jobs. The politicians wouldn't be so much for war profits if their sons (and we should add daughters to the draft if it ever comes back, when we should preferably end selective service or add women to it to bring the issue to a head to end it).

      There's no reason for the wasted money running the selective service program without a draft, so end it. It will take an act of Congress, something the political class doesn't want.

  7. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

    This flies in the face of American history. From the very beginning of English colonization of North America young men have been required to participate in their local militias. The local militia tradition continued right through the "Militia Act of 1903" which perpetuated the "unorganized militia" to the present day, while substituting the National Guard nationwide for the local militia system. Calling it conscription does not change the fact that state governors and the President of the United States have ALWAYS had the authority to call up the militia for emergencies.

    1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

      I also suggest that eliminating the local militia system was NOT an improvement in the safeguarding of LIBERTY in the United States. Young men no longer feel the need or have the responsibility to oppose tyranny and the result has not been a good thing!

  8. creech   2 months ago

    Cong. Houlahan is behind this? Wasn't she one of the six who warned military members about their duty to refuse illegal orders? Yet she's all o.k. with violating constitutional rights against involuntary service. Of course, she was alright too with violating the code of honor at the Naval Academy (and she got away with it).

  9. Jerry B.   2 months ago

    Draft 'em all, any sex, gender, or physical condition, at 18, for a two-year term of service.

  10. MoreFreedom   2 months ago

    "A May 2026 Overton Insights poll found that 66 percent would oppose a military draft under President Donald Trump."

    Why is this sentence in the article, if not an irrelevant jab a Trump, who has no authority to change the selective service law (note the mixing of apples and oranges: selective service vs a draft) without an act of Congress? Further, Trump has never proposed a draft and is likely against it. It would be fair if the author also reported the percentage who would oppose a military draft under Biden and also under a Harris administration (which IMHO would make Democrats look worse). And how about a poll of the members of Congress for their positions on the draft and also selective service?

    These digs at Trump aren't very libertarian and instead look like childish TDS.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Can Milei's Success in Argentina Be Repeated Elsewhere?

Katherine Mangu-Ward | From the December 2026 issue

Brickbat: Redeverbot

Charles Oliver | 11.2.2026 4:00 AM

Haley Stevens Endorses Mike Rogers, Spurns Leftist Abdul El-Sayed

Robby Soave | 11.1.2026 3:01 PM

Washington, D.C.'s Proposed Foie Gras Ban Is Built on a Lie

Billy Binion | 11.1.2026 7:00 AM

Jacksonville Is Spending $775 Million To Renovate a Stadium It Won't Use Next Year

Jon Loesche | 11.1.2026 6:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Reason

The All-Argentina Issue is Here

New from Reason: a look into what Javier Milei has accomplished and what it will take to make the most of Argentina’s window for real change. Out now for subscribers.

Subscribe & Start Reading Learn More