Capitalism & religion love free will.

And why that’s a problem.

It is unsurprising, because, after all, most religions are built on a free will foundation: we are ostensibly free to choose between good and evil, which then leads to our just rewards and retribution in the afterlife.

Capitalism apes religion while denouncing it. Ayn Rand, the poster child for laissez-faire capitalism, frequently dismissed religion as irrational while at the same time asserting the irrational claim of the existence of free will. (And not just the weak sauce compatibilist kind of free will that plagues the pragmatic sensibilities of modern philosophers, but Rand championed total foundational volition, choices emerging from nothing, ex nihilo.)

To many die-hard capitalists, personal choices are the best representation of a person’s virtue and merit such that just deserts make moral sense; the poor are blamed for their bad choices and allowed to suffer, while the rich are often credited as virtuous people who make righteous choices from the bottom of their righteous souls.

Meanwhile, what really occurs is scientifically uncontroversial and a matter of fact: the poor man or woman had the bad sense to be born in a certain womb, and external factors ensued, combined with genetics, and that’s all there is to it. The proverbial double helix of nature and nurture.

There is no third strand; to find it one would need to introduce magical fairy dust, as all choices have priors outside of view and beyond our control.

“Man can will what he does. But he cannot will what he wills.” — Schopenhauer

Note that laissez-faire capitalism and orthodox religion are in league with each other: They both reinforce and depend on the concept of free will in order for their doctrines to have ethical coherence; for their authority to have moral gravity.

These social phenomena mutually benefit each other, even if they pretend to be at odds.

Why talk about free will?

Because it’s relevant to economics; UBI specifically. If we can learn to see the world as it is, where even our choices are determined by physical laws long before we make them, we can begin to build a more ethically consistent society.

Replace retribution with deterrent; replace glorification with incentive. Not a single one of us chose to be born into the circumstances we’re in, nor did we choose whatever grit, ambition, or talent that we deploy or don’t, thus everyone should have a chance to live with safety, dignity, and opportunity.

This assumes we care about fairness. Perhaps, deep down, many of us don't. If so, this deserves honest and fearless discussion.

In any case, we can’t make everything equal or force equal rewards. But what we can do is divorce the moral judgment from the equation.

Just like we don’t need to blame and shame someone’s character for being born short, we shouldn’t criticize one’s character for any choice they make, because a human decision is every bit as bound by causality as human height.

We may not feel this is the case intuitively. Yet we simply cannot deny that even something as subtle and proximate as a personal choice must be part of a causal chain.

Perhaps we can take refuge in at least feeling that free will is true subjectively and regard it as a comfortable and necessary illusion.

That’s fine, as far as it goes, but a deeply egocentric way to look at it. Because the topic is not just about YOU or whether you feel like you have free will. It’s also about how you treat others fairly, given what you, regarding others from the outside, know about them.

Do we want a society that credits people for things they didn’t earn, or metes out punishment for many more who did nothing to deserve it? Because that’s what we have. Our system goes way beyond incentives and deterrents. We shame, blame and punish; and we aggrandize, lionize and deify.

If we don’t question the fallacy of libertarian free will, unfairness is what we will continue to have.

Don’t wait for permission: Bizarrely, more than 90% of philosophers insist free will exists in a deterministic universe by asserting something called compatibilism. (The view that free will and determinism are compatible, suggesting that people can be free in their choices even if those choices are influenced by prior causes.)

It’s a shocking example of how most philosophers — those very sages entrusted to bravely seek truth at all costs — formulate a nonsense argument and spread it to society for no better reason than because it’s a useful lie.

It’s crucial to take note of this glitch in the mainstream intellectual tapestry of our times, and to gently and peacefully do your part to fight it.

If we want UBI (universal basic income), we must challenge the flawed concept of free will. A fallacious belief in free will is the root cause of many of the unfair systems we uphold in society, including meritocratic ideals that lead to wildly unequal opportunities and a majority of people locked into a demeaning life sentence of wage slavery or the ravages of poverty with little chance of escape.

Lucid, straightforward material on why free will doesn’t exist, and why that’s okay, can be found from Sam Harris, on his Making Sense podcast (various episodes on free will), and Robert Sapolsky, interviewed by renowned physicist Lawrence Krauss on YouTube. Or consider reading Robert Sapolsky's book, "Determined," which is beautifully written.

Sapolsky is a true genius and appears to be a lovable character on par with the gentle but firm Spinoza and Einstein. While his work isn’t new, per se, it’s how he says it, while also being armed to the teeth with enough neuroscientific data to silence skeptics, if they cravenly choose to attack along those lines.

Here’s something fun. I wrote a note to Sapolsky and received a response!

My note:

“Without qualification, your claims are self-evidently true. I loved your book and all of your interviews and debates — it’s been so satisfying. Free will also sits at the center of Randian libertarian ideals and capitalism. It’s strange that Rand, who disavowed religion clung to libertarian free will. Cognitive dissonance I guess.”

His response:

“Rand – well, religion creeps in the back door in many forms.  Thanks for the really kind words.”

Any time, Professor S.

Keep doing God’s work. 😉