My assumption for some time now is that there is a natural alignment between those who deny contra-causal free will (either hard determinist or compatibilist - we may act as though we have choice but ultimately we are determined) and those who favor liberal, progressive, etc. policies. Likewise, there is an alignment between those who believe in contra causal-free will and conservative, laissez faire, etc. policies.
The logic of this assumption is laid out in the essay by Tom Clark, Progressive Policy Implications of Naturalism
The purpose of this thread is to stimulate discussion on the following:
- Is this a valid assumption?
- To what extent is it shared by those on either side of the question of free will?
- If the assumption is correct, to what extent is a discussion of free will crucial to its larger political and policy implications?
Any of these discussions might naturally lead to a debate over the issue of free will itself. As my answer to the 3rd discussion topic is that the political implications are profound, I welcome this larger debate!