Be Like Han

I write
a lot
about
free will, and people don’t understand why. I’ll try here again to explain.

Simply, one’s stance on whether or not we choose our actions directly vs.
whether our choices are the product of genes and environment deeply
saturates all of a person’s political beliefs.

Here are a few examples:

1. Rewarding the Rich: If you believe that people decide to
   be ambitious, or self-disciplined, or to work 12 hours a day at the
   office, etc., then you’re more likely to agree that it’s wrong to
   overtax such people. After all, they chose to be rich, and others have
   equal opportunity to do so.If, alternatively, you believe that rich
   people have a combination of good luck and good genes–which then lead to
   having a good work ethic, etc.–then you’re more likely to be in favor of
   highly progressive taxation. After all, they were lucky to be smart and
   be born into good families, so redistribution is the right thing to do
   over a certain point of wealth.

2. Punishment of Criminals: If you believe that people make bad
   choices, then it is quite natural to want to lock them away, kill
   them, or otherwise apply harsh punishment. After all, they had the
   option to do the right thing and they chose not to. Shame on them.If,
   alternatively, you believe that poor genes and poor environment are the
   ingredients of crime, then it’s more likely that you’ll support
   rehabilitation-based criminal justice, i.e. you isolate then re-educate.

3. Socialized Education/Healthcare/Etc.: If you believe everyone has
   been given an equal chance for acquiring basic services, and we know
   that some people have these services, it naturally follows that
   everyone should find a way to acquire them on their own.If,
   alternatively, you believe that the only reason some people have these
   things is that they happened to be born in the right place at the right
   time, you’re more likely to promote programs that aim to ensure these
   services for everyone.

There are three examples of absolutely core political issues that hinge
directly on the question of how much choice an individual has. Now, what
variable determines whether someone believes in free will or not? The answer
is religion.

According to Christianity, God gave everyone free choice explicitly. It was
not an afterthought; it’s part of the doctrine. And those who embrace that
belief are logically pushed toward rewarding those who succeed and punishing
those who don’t. Once you accept that everyone makes their own choices, as
given by God, this is a natural and logical line of reasoning.

Without that belief, however, and given a healthy sprinkling of education,
thinking people are left with a different conclusion: People who have their
basic needs met tend not to be criminals. People with more education tend
not be criminals. And concentrations of these people are located very
clearly and predictably based on geography. And since people don’t decide
where they’re born, it’s pretty natural to see that people’s outcomes are
based largely on the hands they’ve been dealt.

Get a weekly breakdown of what’s happening in security and tech—and why it matters.

Ok, but where’s the data?

Let’s look at some primary examples. The Scandinavian countries are highly
consequentialist when it comes to punishment, they are highly in favor of
socialized services, and they tax the rich at a high rate. Why is that?

I believe it’s because they are not religious, and therefore take the
logical rather than dogmatic explanation for why people become what they
become, i.e. rich people got rich because of good genes, good families, and
luck. And criminals became criminals because they had some combination of
the opposite fortune.

These countries also enjoy the safest communities, the most educated
populations, and the highest ratio of aid-vs-GDP in the world.

Now take the United States and other religion-based countries and you have
pretty much the opposite. You have a highly retributivist approach to
punishment, you have an adoration of the rich and contempt of the poor, and
a strong aversion to the concept of redistribution of wealth.

Why? Because we believe people make their own decisions, and deserve what
they get.

And why is that? Because of the illusion of free will propagated by
religion. ::