Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

Will Prohibitionists Tie The New Conservative Movement To Trump? – The Fresh Toast

Disclaimer:The views expressed in this article solely belong to the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Fresh Toast.

I like to think that Donald Trumps failure to support marijuana legalization cost him the election, but now I have the same questions about the Conservative movement going forward, and America always needs a healthy opposition, so it should be of concern for everyone, whatever their politics.

RELATED: Why Conservatives Should Support Marijuana Legalization

Unfortunately, it would seem that leading Conservative think tanks have already been captured by the Drug Warriors. The Heritage Foundation, one of the oldest voices on the right, is actually headed by a former Associate Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, under President George H. W. Bush, Kay C. James.

However, Heritage has been lying about marijuana, and about little old me for a long time.

RELATED: How The Heritage Foundation Used Newsweek to Recycle Lies About My Medical Marijuana Scam

Not to be outdone, the Hudson Institute, one of Heritages leading competitors, is actually headed by James former boss, John Walters, who was the Czar himself under Bush. And Walters was certainly one of the worst.

Walters actually said:

(Marijuana) is by far the single largest factor in illegal drug addiction in the country. The conventional view out there today is that marijuana is a soft drug, that marijuana is harmless and that it is not addictive, and there is no withdrawal. Its not just a gateway drug. If you are not talking about marijuana, you are not talking about the central part of the problem.

Yep. He really said that.

RELATED: Profiles In Prohibition: Drug Czar John Walters The Maddest Of Reefer Madness

Another major conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute,is more moderate, relying primarily on Sally Satel. She is what I would call a moderate prohibitionist, but unlike her counterparts, she is intellectually honest. Nonetheless, AEI is really out of touch with the American people on this issue.

In real-world politics these think tanks exist to give cover to politicians, and there are a few politicians who actually care about ideas. For those who do, the Cato Institute, Washingtons leading Libertarian think tank, and Reasonin California are excellent.

Photo by alexsl/Getty Images

Then there is Fox News and Tucker Carlson and Wow!

SEE: Tucker Carlson Guest Worried Humanity Might Go Extinct From Smoking Weed (Video) AND: Tucker Carlson Tries To Blame Marijuana For Mass Shootings

Carlson is no fringe crackpot. He is one of the favorites of the new post-Trump Fox News. He is a mainstream crackpot.

The problem for Conservatism now is that everything has to be calibrated around Trump, whose previous libertarian views on marijuana evaporated when he thought a prohibitionist Attorney General, first Jeff Sessions, then Bill Barr, both prohibitionists, would be his consigliere. Oops!

RELATED: The Prohibitionist Deep State: Trumps New Chief of Staff Even Opposed CBD for Desperately Sick Children And Medical Marijuana for Disabled Vets

Over the next few years, American Conservatism will have to redefine itself, and if it ties itself to marijuana prohibition, it will never regain the majority. (Heres alist of anti-cannabis organizations .)

Finally, I am not comparing any of the above to the following, but: Neo-Nazis Think Marijuana Legalization Is A Jewish Conspiracy.

Its time to choose. But it always is.

Richard Cowan is a former NORML National Director and creator of Blue Ribbon Hemp for Senior Citizens Oral Strips.

Read the rest here:
Will Prohibitionists Tie The New Conservative Movement To Trump? - The Fresh Toast

Where ‘freedom’ meets the far right: the hate messages infiltrating Australian anti-lockdown protests – The Guardian

In November, a user named Dominic D wrote something akin to a mission statement for the anti-lockdown protest group he runs on the messaging app Telegram.

Dominic had been accused by another member of being associated with a far-right group, which he flatly denied. His group, Dominic wrote, was a place for moderates, libertarians, conservatives, and all other advocates of Freedom to have discussions about protesting.

I have one face. This is it. I am not Far-Right. I am a Libertarian Populist, and I support Freedom of Speech, Dominic told the dissenting member.

But a Guardian investigation has revealed Dominics engagement with a number of far-right groups online, including one used by the far-right Proud Boys group to vet new members and another made up of white supremacists including neo-Nazi Tom Sewell, who last month was charged after an alleged assault of a Channel Nine security guard.

Dominic Ds real name is Harrison McLean, a 24-year-old IT programmer, blockchain architect and former competitive cheerleader from Wantirna South in Melbournes outer suburbs.

Using his pseudonym, he has outlined plans to introduce his freedom group to more radical political views, while expressing deeply antisemitic opinions.

In an interview with the Guardian this week, McLean denied that he was seeking to radicalise his followers or to introduce them to antisemitic material, but said he wanted to unify people on the basis of peaceful protests and under the idea of freedom.

[The aim] is to empower people so that if theyre not necessarily politically active before, then a political protest might be some way for them to sort of begin their process of engaging in this space, but Im absolutely not trying to radicalise anybody, he said.

McLean began attending anti-lockdown protests in September and has since become a key organiser, helping to drive a rebrand after the lockdown lifted by shifting the movements focus to the broader themes of freedom that have come to typify the protests.

His group is now one of the largest and most organised in the movement, with more than 2,000 followers on Telegram, and attracts hundreds of people to the Melbourne protests.

On the surface, the freedom movements broad aim has been to end Covid restrictions. At a rally in Melbournes Flagstaff Gardens last Saturday, several hundred protesters waved anti-vaccination placards and called for the Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, to resign.

But the movement has also become a beacon for conspiracy theorists, emerging as the real-world manifestation of a rabbit warren of online misinformation that has run rampant during the pandemic.

While McLean uses an alias online, he has recently begun using his real name at the rallies. On Saturday he railed against so-called vaccine mandates, claimed there was no pandemic and said the freedom movement was done with the cabal which runs this country.

We are going to purge this country of every single incumbent politician who does not support freedom, he told the cheering crowd.

In collaboration with anti-fascist research group the White Rose Society, the Guardian has tracked McLeans activity through the rabbit warren of largely unregulated Telegram groups and found that he describes a vastly different version of his intentions.

In groups he has described as devoted to serious Anti-Zionist chat and about digging into the relationship between Jews, and the NWO [new world order], McLean has explained the need to be cautious about exposing his allies in the anti-lockdown movement to antisemitic content yet.

McLean has offered counsel on effective ways to introduce people to entry level research on antisemitic conspiracy theories, given advice on how to create effective antisemitic memes and explained how he helped introduce followers in his anti-lockdown movement to more radical views.

In a series of messages sent in November, McLean told the serious Anti-Zionist chat that while he shared many of the concerns about the ... present role of the Jews, members of his group were not ready for the JQ yet, using a common shorthand among white supremacists for the Jewish Question.

We have a LOT of very NORMIE people coming in from banners and [Facebook] groups that are not ready for the JQ yet, and may attack us as highly anti-Semitic and stop promoting us all together to their friends and family, he wrote.

The members of his group, he wrote, are new to this side of politics and discourse and were not comfortable with the idea that Hitler had some good points ... or that they are a major controlling force in the world.

We start at Dan Bad and go right through to No Coercive Vaccines and get into the Pedo suppression orders and NWO agenda and One world government as a concept to be opposed, he wrote, echoing a laundry list of baseless and antisemitic conspiracy theories that have found a fresh audience during the pandemic.

I wish it were different [but] we need to take it one step at a time.

Police and security agencies have repeatedly warned that far-right groups have used the pandemic to recruit, but the rise of anti-lockdown groups that blend wellness influencers, libertarians, anti-vaxxers and those who mistrust governments into a heaving conspiracy-laced soup has made distinguishing the motives of those actors increasingly confounding.

In its submission to an upcoming federal inquiry into extremism and radicalism, Victoria police say extreme leftwing and rightwing individuals have joined conspiracy-based groups espousing conflating ideologies during the pandemic, something it says has proved a challenge for law enforcement.

The head of Asio, Mike Burgess, announced this month that the intelligence organisation would dump terms such as rightwing extremism because of a growing number of individuals and groups that dont fit on the leftright spectrum.

But the Guardians investigation found a significant overlap between the so-called freedom movement and far-right groups.

In an interview with the Guardian, McLean denied that he wanted to introduce his followers to the kind of antisemitic material he expressed support for online and emphatically denied having any white supremacist sympathies. He said his group supports freedom of religion and freedom from religion and argued his comments were made in the context of not wanting those discussions to occur on his own group.

I direct people to that Telegram group so they can see that argument and almost certainly see the flaws in that argument, he said.

But in the course of an hour-long interview, McLean also made antisemitic claims about Jewish overrepresentation in the higher echelons of media [and] business.

Im not saying that those discussions shouldnt occur, just not in [my group], he said.

Obviously its controversial and I have a view on it, which is people should do that research themselves and make that decision.

What I was saying was that this is a discussion for people to have on their own terms and sort of make their own mind up and see both sides of the argument ... theyre not wrong about everything but they do highly over-attribute those issues to Jews, which I dont think they should do and I dont support.

But the Guardians investigation also found McLean is a member of the Telegram group used by the Australian Proud Boys to vet new members. Founded by the Canadian-British far-right activist and Vice magazine co-founder Gavin McInnes in 2016, the Proud Boys describe themselves as Western chauvinists. In February the Canadian government designated the Proud Boys as a terrorist organisation, describing it as a serious and growing threat.

Asked whether he was a member of the organisation, McLean said: I cant answer that question at this time.

Though the Proud Boys remain relatively small in Australia, the group has become much more active during the pandemic. McLean admitted members were involved in his freedom movement, and revealed that he had met some of the Australian leaders during protests.

There are Proud Boys in [the group McLean runs] but it is not a Proud Boys operation per se, he said.

There is some overlap on a lot of principles [within the groups] but not all of them ... we have had the Proud Boys come to our events, they were invited, they didnt infiltrate us.

As the Guardian has previously reported, in October the president of the Borderlands faction of the Proud Boys, Jarrad Searby, used the same Telegram group administered by McLean to put a call out for people trained in some form of combat to clash with police at a rally in Melbourne.

A month later, Searby was arrested and pepper-sprayed at a protest on Melbourne Cup day at which several hundred people were arrested.

Searby was not the only Proud Boys member present. Internal messages sent between members of the group obtained by the Guardian reveal that before the protest the groups Victorian president encouraged other Proud Boys members to attend.

Its time to rise up, he wrote on 28 October.

Victoria needs a Pinochet and we need it fast If youre on the fence about supporting this on Tuesday because Dan eased restrictions then you have Stockholm syndrome.

In private messages seen by the Guardian, the president, who goes by the alias Versace Cowboy online, has also hailed the US gunman Kyle Rittenhouse for doing gods work and discussed conducting patrols of Melbourne suburbs during the African gangs scare.

Might be able to help do what the cops cant, he wrote at the time.

McLean has also maintained a list of freedom groups that he circulates to thousands of followers on Telegram. The list includes members of the Proud Boys organisation, and another group that is populated by a number of white supremacists, including Sewell.

The list is shared widely throughout so-called freedom groups on Telegram, creating what Cameron Smith, an independent researcher who has tracked conspiracy movements throughout the pandemic, calls a cross-pollination point between it and the far right.

Were talking about a group of people with no real political framework to make sense of the response to the pandemic. They have a feeling that something is amiss but they dont know what. Its not hard to point them in a particular direction and that particular direction being the Jews is not a new concept, Smith said.

Its also a group that largely had no real political experience to be able to recognise things like entryism. This all combined to make them easy pickings for the far-right.

McLean categorically denied that he supported any form of white supremacism, but said he had promoted the group because its administrator had been supportive of the movement, not because we agree with everything he says. But he conceded his aim was to shift the Overton Window, a term that describes the range of political ideas or policies considered acceptable by mainstream society.

What Im trying to do is build a big tent movement from the libertarian right to nationalists to populists to independents to moderates and even some leftwing people all supporting freedom, he said.

Its about building one unified group that can embrace a wide range of political stances [and] to expand the Overton Window to some elements of movement that are currently more fringe.

Youre probably right, I would prefer for them [the Proud Boys] to be less fringe in the context of having their views be more acceptable but not in a way that involves any sort of violence, just the rhetoric and discourse.

Joshua Roose, a senior research fellow at Deakin University, has been tracking the far right in Australia throughout the pandemic. He told the Guardian that typically there were two levels of overlap between elements of the far right and the anti-lockdown movement.

On one level there is a natural overlap in the narratives of those groups in that they are both concerned with the idea of liberal elites, you know, a wealthy and unelected ruling class who they have to take back control from, he said.

The far right typically have a harder racial edge to that, but that overlap, combined with some of the racialised elements of Covid-19 in mainstream media and politics you know, the China virus has I think opened a door for those worlds to combine.

But Roose said there had also been a more explicit attempt by far-right elements to win over conspiracy-minded groups.

There has certainly been discussions in far-right forums both in the US and Australia about how to mobilise, for example, QAnon supporters, and more broadly the people engaged in these freedom rallies, he said.

Roose said there were active protagonists within the far right who were seeking to mobilise the resentment, the sense of anger and disenfranchisement to bring people into the far-right fold.

He pointed to the example of Sewell and the former United Patriots Front leader Blair Cottrell, who have frequently posted anti-vaccination material, combined with a steady stream of antisemitic and racist content.

The 20 March protest offered a demonstration of how the pandemic has allowed those with far-right views to find common cause with more mainstream political actors.

Another attendee was Monica Smit, a former reality TV contestant who founded a group called Reignite Democracy Australia in September. Smit has not flirted with the more fringe elements of the far right such as the Proud Boys. Instead, her group rails against Covid-19 restrictions, including against mask mandates and lockdowns. Like McLean, Smit denies she is anti-vaccination, instead claiming to be pro-choice.

Reignite Democracy has built up a following of about 60,000 on Facebook. During the statewide lockdown in Victoria the group gained mainstream media attention with its Sack Dan bus, and has broadened its attention to rightwing theories including the great reset.

More recently, Reignite Democracy has sought candidates to run in elections, saying it wants to replace lazy politicians with worthy ones and be a voice for the people.

As the Guardian has previously reported, Smit has links to the Liberal party, and the group has been able to attract support from a number of mainstream political figures including the Victorian Liberal Bernie Finn, the state Liberal Democrat MP David Limbrick and the independent Catherine Cummings.

Limbrick spoke at the 20 March rally, appearing immediately after McLean to tell the crowd that Victorias long-running state of emergency had resulted in some of the greatest human rights oppressions in the states history. In a livestream video of the event, Smit said Limbricks presence really legitimises the event.

The Guardian was unable to contact Smit, and does not suggest that she holds McLeans views. But McLean said his group and Reignite Democracy definitely share a lot of ideological alignment. The groups frequently promote each others content, and McLean and Smit have appeared at a number of protests together.

The main difference between the two groups, McLean said, was that Reignite Democracy was more focused on shoring up the political element of the movement, but he described Smit as a friend and said that while the groups operate separately, we have followers across both groups.

I would say there is a 25% to 50% overlap of [my groups] supporters and RDA and vice versa, he said.

The Guardian does not suggest Limbrick or any of the MPs who have offered their support to the freedom rallies endorse the antisemitic views expressed by McLean.

Limbrick said that if he had heard antisemitic views expressed at Saturdays rally he would have been disgusted.

The main message I was hearing was that people were upset about the human rights impacts of the lockdowns and the restrictions over the last year, he said.

There has been an explosion in misinformation over the last year but part of what Im doing is to try to combat that with high quality information about some of the actual concerns people have I dont think othering people who might listen to misinformation and not listening to their concerns is the right way to deal with it.

But while Limbrick said he did not believe attempts by elements of the far right to infiltrate the movement had been successful pointing to the diverse crowd that attended Saturdays rally others argue that the interplay between the groups is changing the state of acceptable discourse.

Roose said: People on the far right are constantly talking about the Overton Window and shifting the realm of public debate, to make their ideas acceptable and normalise deep-seated racism and hostility to others.

See the original post here:
Where 'freedom' meets the far right: the hate messages infiltrating Australian anti-lockdown protests - The Guardian

5 things the Libertarian Party stands for | TheHill

Billionaire reality TV star Mark Cuban was asked last Sunday if he would run for president as a Libertarian. And like a majority of Americans, he admitted he didn't really know where the party stands on issues.

Thanks to how unpopular the likely Democratic and Republican nominees are, top Libertarians hope that the increased focus on their party as an alternative will help shed light on the Libertarian message.

But many Americans remain in the darka 2014 Pew Research survey also showed that 44 percent of Americans didn't know the correct definition of the party. So the challenge the party faces as it holds its national convention this weekend is familiarizing Americans with its platform.

Here are five major pieces of the Libertarian Party platform, as well as some issues its platform committee on Saturday is looking to change for this year:

Individual freedom

The idea of individual freedom defines the libertarian movementits the party of limited government, in all forms.

We are the only political party that stands for your right to pursue happiness in any way you choose as long as you dont hurt anyone else and as long as you dont take their stuff, party chairman Nicholas Sarwark told The Hill.

This year, the partys platform committee is looking to highlight how that differs with the two main parties with a new addition to the platform preamble: Our aim is to keep the Republicans out of your bedroom and the Democrats out of your pockets, so that you can make your own choices and live your life as you choose.

That push for individual freedom colors the views of the party on just about every issueincluding drug legalization, free trade, and free-market health care, as well as the elimination of campaign finance and gun control laws.

Social liberals

The push for individual freedom puts libertarians toward the left side of the political spectrum on many of the major social issues.

The 2014 platform argues that government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships, adding that consenting adults should have freedom to chose what makes them happy.

The same goes for drug legalizationthe party considers drug use and possession as victimless crimes that should be fair game unless the user hurts someone else in the process.

The platform does not currently address the death penalty, but the platform committee has proposed an indefinite suspension of the practice, noting the number of exonerations since 1973 and the disproportional use of the death penalty based on race.

Economic conservatives

Libertarians have faith in the free market and believe that theres little the government can do to pressure businesses or individuals that would be better than the power of the Invisible Hand.

That means unrestricted competition among financial institutions as well as the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security and income taxes.

The main argument is that social pressure and the free market will convince individuals and companies to donate to charity to help the less fortunate -- replacing the need for the government-run social safety-net -- or make business decisions to protect the environment in the hopes of being rewarded by the market for those efforts.

And in the free market, companies live and die without the help of the government, so no bailouts.

But that doesnt mean taking the government entirely out of the equationthe platform committee has proposed clarifying that victims of a companys disregard for the environment should be given restitution when "damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law.

Abortion

Despite the socially liberal bent, this is an issue where libertarians disagree.

The 2014 platform echoed an effectively pro-abortion rights position, arguing government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

But this year, a potentially contentious change recommended by the partys platform committee includes a complete retool of that platform, shifting the rhetoric back toward the center.

If adopted, the plank will declare that Libertarians believe that taxpayers should not "forced to pay for other peoples' abortions." That's a dramatic shift from the previous assertion that the issue should be left solely to the individual.

A proposal would add to that new wording that Libertarians respectfully disagree on abortion and where life begins, while another proposal would simply note that "Libertarians along the spectrum present logical arguments in support of their principled positions on abortion."

A fourth proposal by the platform committee calls to eliminate regulations on over-the-counter contraceptives to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Non-interventionist foreign policy

Libertarians want America to abandon its attempts to act as a policeman for a world, and its platform on defense reads like a criticism of Americas foreign policy direction. The partys goal is to maintain a military devoted only to national defense, while shutting down foreign military and economic aid.

Along with that de-emphasis on the offensive, the platform repudiates the tradeoff between liberty and security by declaring that national defense must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens.

That means vigilant oversight on national security programs to ensure no rights are infringed upon as well as getting rid of any security classification that could keep information out of the hands of the public.

Excerpt from:
5 things the Libertarian Party stands for | TheHill

Key Concepts of Libertarianism | Cato Institute

Individualism. Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility. The progressive extension of dignity to more people to women, to people of different religions and different races is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world.

Individual Rights. Because individuals are moral agents, they have aright to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away.

Spontaneous Order. Agreat degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. Its easy to assume that order must be imposed by acentral authority, the way we impose order on astamp collection or afootball team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop acomplex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society language, law, money, and markets all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society the complex network of associations and connections among people is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for apurpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have apurpose of its own.

The Rule of Law. Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not aclaim that people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything. Rather, libertarianism proposes asociety of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.

Limited Government. To protect rights, individuals form governments. But government is adangerous institution. Libertarians have agreat antipathy to concentrated power, for as Lord Acton said, Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus they want to divide and limit power, and that means especially to limit government, generally through awritten constitution enumerating and limiting the powers that the people delegate to government. Limited government is the basic political implication of libertarianism, and libertarians point to the historical fact that it was the dispersion of power in Europe more than other parts of the world that led to individual liberty and sustained economic growth.

Free Markets. To survive and to flourish, individuals need to engage in economic activity. The right to property entails the right to exchange property by mutual agreement. Free markets are the economic system of free individuals, and they are necessary to create wealth. Libertarians believe that people will be both freer and more prosperous if government intervention in peoples economic choices is minimized.

The Virtue of Production. Much of the impetus for libertarianism in the seventeenth century was areaction against monarchs and aristocrats who lived off the productive labor of other people. Libertarians defended the right of people to keep the fruits of their labor. This effort developed into arespect for the dignity of work and production and especially for the growing middle class, who were looked down upon by aristocrats. Libertarians developed apreMarxist class analysis that divided society into two basic classes: those who produced wealth and those who took it by force from others. Thomas Paine, for instance, wrote, There are two distinct classes of men in the nation, those who pay taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes. Similarly, Jefferson wrote in 1824, We have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. Modern libertarians defend the right of productive people to keep what they earn, against anew class of politicians and bureaucrats who would seize their earnings to transfer them to political clients and cronies.

Natural Harmony of Interests. Libertarians believe that there is anatural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in ajust society. One persons individual plans which may involve getting ajob, starting abusiness, buying ahouse, and so on may conflict with the plans of others, so the market makes many of us change our plans. But we all prosper from the operation of the free market, and there are no necessary conflicts between farmers and merchants, manufacturers and importers. Only when government begins to hand out rewards on the basis of political pressure do we find ourselves involved in group conflict, pushed to organize and contend with other groups for apiece of political power.

Peace. Libertarians have always battled the ageold scourge of war. They understood that war brought death and destruction on agrand scale, disrupted family and economic life, and put more power in the hands of the ruling class which might explain why the rulers did not always share the popular sentiment for peace. Free men and women, of course, have often had to defend their own societies against foreign threats; but throughout history, war has usually been the common enemy of peaceful, productive people on all sides of the conflict.

Read the rest here:
Key Concepts of Libertarianism | Cato Institute

‘The Matrix’ Universe and the Fight to Reclaim Free Will – The Great Courses Daily News

By David K. Johnson, Ph.D., Kings CollegeQuantum mechanics has taught us that determinism is false. On the quantum level, individual events happen randomly and without a cause all the time. (Image: MoVille/Shutterstock)A Deterministic Universe

Neo, the main character of The Matrix franchise, is informed by the Oracle that to fulfill the prophecies he must go to the computer mainframe called the Source. To do that, he has to find the Key Maker who has been abducted by an ancient program called the Merovingian.

When Neo, Morpheus and Trinity find Merovingian in a restaurant, he tells them that choice is an illusion. What he is referring to is the idea of determinism, which argues everything in the universe is predetermined and free will is just an illusion. The Merovingian believes we are living in a deterministic universe.

Many philosophers have tried to refute the idea of determinism, but thats a daunting task. Those who endorse the libertarian notion of free will are usually called agent causation theorists. They think that in order for an action to be free, the causal explanation for why that action occurred must end, ultimately, in the agentthe personwho performed that action. Agents are the ultimate cause of free actions; thats why there are alternate possibilities.

But if determinism is true, not only are there no alternate possibilities, but agents are not the ultimate cause of their actions. The causal explanation of peoples action traces back all the way to the motion of atoms at the beginning of the universe.

This is a transcript from the video series Sci-Phi: Science Fiction as Philosophy. Watch it now, on The Great Courses Plus.

Technically speaking, the Merovingian is wrong. The universe is not a deterministic system. Quantum mechanics has taught us that determinism is false. On the quantum level, individual events happen randomly and without a cause all the time. And to be clear, its not merely that we have so far been unable to predict such events or find their cause. We have actually proved, experimentally, that they have no cause.

Unfortunately, the randomness of quantum events cannot rescue human free will. For one, as philosopher Peter van Inwagen points out, indeterminism is just as incompatible with free will as determinism.

Learn more about the philosophical conundrum of free will and determinism.

Even if our decisions are the consequence of random quantum events in our brain, then we still arent free because we arent the cause of those events. We cant be. Nothing is the cause of those events. Indeed, their randomness entails that they are not caused.

Secondly, determinism is still true in a different way. Quantum randomness, which occurs on the micro-level, is essentially averaged out on the macro-level of larger objects. For example, the decay of individual radioactive atoms is random, but if you have a collection of them, you can deterministically predict when half of them will decay.

The statistical notion of adequate determinism can be used to predict the behavior of larger physical systems despite quantum behavior inside them. Since the brain is such a system, even though it may be impossible to predict specific quantum events within it, the outcome of the brains activity is likely deterministic. We may even one day have laws that enable us to predict its behavior.

All of this clearly makes it difficult to defend the notion that humans are free in the libertarian sense. Consequently, some philosophers have suggested an alternate theory of what it means to be free, known as compatibilism.

As the name suggests, these philosophers believe that free will and determinism are compatible. This idea dates all the way back to Aristotle and is defended by modern-day philosophers like John Martin Fischer.

Learn more about Aristotle and the Socratic legacy.

The essence of the suggestion is that an agent freely performs an action as long as that action flows or follows from some part of the agent. To modify Fischers argument, which was originally about moral responsibility, we might say that an agents action is free as long as it is the result of a conscious rational deliberative process.

If the agent thinks about what to do, and then the outcome of that process causes the agents action, then the agent has acted freely. The problem with this understanding of free will is that it doesnt align with our intuitions about what free will is.

According to the theory, as long as you are acting in accordance with the consequence of your rational deliberation, then you are acting freelyeven if outside forces are what ultimately caused that rational deliberation to occur as it did.

Philosophers who endorse the libertarian notion of free will are usually called agent causation theorists. According to this theory, for an action to be free, the causal explanation for why that action occurred must end, ultimately, in the agentthe personwho performed that action. Agents are the ultimate cause of free actions; thats why there are alternate possibilities.

On the quantum level, individual events happen randomly and without a cause, all the time. But the randomness of quantum events cannot rescue human free will. Indeterminism is just as incompatible with free will as determinism is. Even if our decisions are the result of random quantum events in our brain, we still arent free because we arent the cause of those events.

Compatibilism suggests that free will and determinism are compatible. The essence of the suggestion is that an agent freely performs an action as long as that action flows or follows from some part of the agent.

Read more:
'The Matrix' Universe and the Fight to Reclaim Free Will - The Great Courses Daily News