The Flawed Premise In Conscripting Women Into The Military

by | Feb 10, 2016 | Military, Women's Rights

You do not preserve a free country by enslaving its citizens to perform life-or-death activities.

In a recent debate, Ted Cruz suggested the idea of drafting women into the military is “nuts.”

Why so? Because drafting anyone into involuntary servitude is wrong, and irrational? No. Not because he’s against the draft, but because he’s against the idea of women being drafted.

During Saturday night’s Republican presidential debate on ABC, candidates Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie argued their support for requiring women to register for a potential draft, however Ted Cruz said on Sunday that he not only opposes the idea, but wonders if his counterparts are ‘nuts,’ Politico reports.

 “I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was, ‘Are you guys nuts?’” Cruz said Sunday at a town hall in New Hampshire. “Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous. And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain’t doing it.”

Ronald Reagan opposed the draft. And the draft ended under Richard Nixon’s administration. Nixon and Reagan were wobbly pragmatists on the subject of individual liberty (Nixon more so); yet even they sensed the evil and the Constitutional inconsistency of a military draft. Why do none of today’s conservatives grasp it?

Democrats usually oppose the military draft, though not for reasons of individual rights. They wish to draft citizens into “national service;” they want involuntary servitude, but for the purpose of working at soup kitchens or picking up highway trash, rather than defending the country. It’s even worse.

The arguments in favor of the draft are self-refuting. You do not preserve a free country by enslaving its citizens to perform life-or-death activities. You do not lessen the offense by excluding half the population—women—from this involuntary servitude. Giving a commander-in-chief the power to draft citizens into combat means making it easier for that commander-in-chief to engage in unjust, irrational wars which have little to do with the nation’s safety. The Vietnam War comes to mind.

The Iraq war, which militarily the United States won after the troop surge, happened without a draft, and despite the nearly impossible rules of engagement imposed on soldiers. The absence of a draft prevented the government from pursuing its goals of nation-building further than it did.

Politico reports that in reference to his two daughters, Cruz added that he wants them to be able to grow up and follow their dreams rather than be forced into the military. “The idea that their government would forcibly put them in a foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them doesn’t make any sense at all,” he said.

And it makes sense for sons?

Cruz is right that political correctness should not govern the military. The military should be about protecting the individual rights of its citizens, with the use of force (or its threat) as necessary. Combat troops are not the only means, nor arguably any longer the primary means, of a nation’s self-defense. None of these points, however, represent the most important argument. The most important argument is that an individual’s life belongs to him- or herself. As the Declaration of Independence states, governments are formed to protect the individual’s right to pursue happiness, and to live as a free person. In the end, you’re either sovereign over your life, or you’re not.

What happens if a war of self-defense, which includes combat, is needed, and not enough men (or women) wish to fight? The question involves a contradiction. If a free country’s way of life were threatened, and the great majority did not wish to defend that way of life, for their own sake most of all, then it was never possible to save such a country, in the first place. It deserves to die. You cannot force liberty on those who do not want it, or who are indifferent to it.

The fact remains that most wars will not require this kind of dilemma, not if we maintain and continuously strengthen our weaponry. Peace through strength, combined with a credible policy of “Don’t tread on me,” are far more powerful than any draft ever could be, and are the only reason we’re still here.

The military draft is not an active issue for debate at this time. Yet it does serve as a very basic litmus test for whether one really stands for the individual right to life. If you have no right to pick your battles, then you have no rights at all.


  1. “You do not preserve a free country by enslaving its citizens to perform life-or-death activities.” Yet, the Civil War, WWI and WWII would have been lost without doing this? The draft was enforced by the US during all three wars because they couldn’t find enough men to convince to fight for their causes. What’s your response? Lose those wars in the name of “freedom” only to be later enslaved by Nazi’s or communists?

  2. On a different note…If men are drafted women should be drafted. If combat is open to women it is morally wrong for men to be forced into these roles if women are not (Equal pay for Equal Work, if you are NOT in combat you are not doing equal work). It’s a stupid idea, it won’t work, but hey, the PC police rule america now.

  3. And if a country survives by making canon fodder of its citizens, just exactly how free will it be when it’s operating on the premise that state owns their lives? What can those citizens expect from it if they return home from the war? A sudden ideological 180 in which their lives and rights are now sancrosanct and the state takes its legitimate role defending those rights? Why would it if it already established that it views those lives as disposable at its whim? Is that the history of the last 70 years, increasing freedom? Or has the country that violated its citizens’ most basic right of all degenerated into a socialist, statist, economic basket case?

    The answer to your question–‘what’s your response’–is contained within the article: a country’s people cannot be both free and conscripted. It’s either-or, and conscripted men by definition are not fighting for freedom.

  4. That didn’t answer my question. If the US did not have the draft, the US would have been killed and replaced by much worse. Even free citizens have a price to pay for their freedom. A draft is a small price to pay. What you call freedom is just semantics to me. I support conscientious objector status. If you don’t want to pay the price for your own freedom, I am happy to pay your way. (In fact I did). Your welcome. Because if we were in many countries you would be killed for your post.

  5. And if the ‘price of freedom’ is extracted with a gun to my head, then I’m not very free, now, am I? The government then regards my life as its to dispose of. That’s the meaning of the draft. Free people do not act at gunpoint. Legitimate rights-respecting governments do not have to force their own support. It is offered voluntarily by men and women who see the value of protecting that political system. If enough of them don’t see that value, then yeah, I suppose the country might fall to its enemies. Maybe it should. How many North Koreans would voluntarily defend that regime?

    In fact your question was answered by me and by the author; disliking what you’re hearing doesn’t make it ‘just semantics.’ ‘What I call freedom’ requires a government to maintain a *consistent* respect for individual rights, not a situational respect practiced only when it can’t think of something to gain by exerting force against its citizens. No one is free when his government is free to dispose of his life at its whim.

  6. I have to obey US laws. I don’t like paying taxes, I pay taxes because there is a gun to my head. Therefore paying taxes = slavery.

    Did I get that right P.?

  7. Yep.

  8. “If a free country’s way of life were threatened, and the great majority did not wish to defend that way of life, for their own sake most of all, then it was never possible to save such a country, in the first place. It deserves to die. You cannot force liberty on those who do not want it, or who are indifferent to it.”

    But what is to be done when the government, and the other opinion makers (the media, academia, Hollywood etc.) lie, and shout from the rooftops, There is no threat, and the people mistakenly believe them, as was the case only recently with Communism, and not long ago with Nazi Germany, and as is the case today with Islam?

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at:


What do you think?

We are always interested in rational feedback and criticism. Feel free to share your thoughts using this form.

We will post responses that we think are of interest to our readers in our Letters section.

Help Capitalism Magazine get the pro-capitalist message out.

With over 10,000 articles readable online Capitalism Magazine is completely free. We rely on the generosity of our readers to keep us going. So if you already donate to us, thank you! And if you don’t, please do consider making a donation today. One-off donations – or better yet, monthly donations – are hugely appreciated. You can find out more here. Thank you!

Related Articles

Abortion Rights are Pro-Life

Abortion Rights are Pro-Life

Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms “pro-life” and “right to life” to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman’s right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.

Voice of Capitalism

Free email weekly newsletter.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest