Last week, we looked at athletes and self-ownership. We concluded that since athletes consciously make the decisions that result in their restrictions, they maintain their self-ownership, even though they concede many of the freedoms and responsibilities that accompany it.

Yet some decisions exist in name only, shaped more by pressure than by freedom. During times of war, individuals have been compelled to serve in the armed forces regardless of their own preferences. This kind of situation brings us closer to the boundary where self-ownership becomes questionable.

If we define self-ownership as the ability to govern one’s actions and body through free will, then the military draft stands as a major exception to that rule. A draftee might not want to join the military, and he doesn’t consciously do anything that puts himself at risk of being drafted. Draftees are simply individuals put in a situation that most likely leads to the military. If an individual chooses to say no, then he is hit with harsh penalties, including up to five years in prison.

Yet even in this situation, some might argue that a choice still exists. The individual may not want to serve, but he is presented with two clear outcomes: comply with the draft, or face punishment. Choosing to serve, even under pressure, is still an act of decision-making. As a result of the individual’s making a decision about how he will respond to the situation, self-ownership is retained in the same way that it is for the prisoner or the athlete.

On the other hand, with such a small number of poor options, calling them “choices” feels misleading. The decision to serve may still be yours, but it’s one made in a corner. In this way, self-ownership becomes more of a technicality than a reality. Yes, the person technically owns his choice, but that ownership is shaped by fear as opposed to freedom.

It becomes a twisted option of damage mitigation that is thrust on the individual seemingly randomly. Even if the individual is controlling the direction of his life, is he really living for his own sake?

In conclusion, while those drafted may technically retain self-ownership because they make the choice to comply or refuse, that ownership is overshadowed by coercion, leaving freedom as little more than a formality.