Free will

Free will, as given to men, is a strange thing.

If free will exists in men, then indeed we should be democratic, and free market economy should be the way, since that is an expression of free will, that people can exercise free will in free trade.

Yet animals, that have no free will, but behave by instincts, are more equal than men who are free.

Animals are more egalitarian, where even the leaders do not have great superiority of resources than the the lower.

Pack and herd animals have social hierarchies, but no great resource disparity.

In free market economy, there is a rule of thumb, the "Law of Perato", the 20-80 rule, that 20% of all customers are responsible for 80% of all business revenue for a particular business.

And yet, the "perato law" is useful across multiple scenarios.

And overall, 20% of all people controls 80% of all resources in an ideal free market economy.

Looking at the world today, that is certainly very true. The upper 20% of the world population do control around 80% of all world resources.

If "free will" exists in men, then why is it that such huge economic disparity exists in the world.

The answer is in multiple possible reasons.

(1) 80% of all people willingly give up their free will and control to the minority 20%
(2) 20% do not stop and continues to accumulate to maintain their dominance in resources.
(3) "free will" is restrained by competition and limitations of resources.

I would say that all 3 reasons are true, but (3) is the underlying factor/cause.

Man may wish to exercise "free will" all the time, but we are forced to deal with the necessities of life, food, housing, clothing, medicine, etc.

To obtain these necessities, we are forced to compete with each other like animals. We cannot raise ourselves beyond animals during competition for resources.

But (2) men do not stop competing, because they want to accumulate competitive advantages over time so to make competition easier in the future. The wealthy accumulates wealth and power, so they do not have to compete as hard in the future.

This forces the economic disparity to grow over time, maintain a perato law trend.

The reality of this is true for political power as well. 20% of all people in a democracy, control 80% of all political authority.

Which means that "representative democracy" is most fitting to the perato law reality of political power scheme.

"true democracies" would in fact slowly evolve toward the 20-80 "representative democracy".

If that is indeed the trend, then it is perfectly acceptable to have a "dictatorship" of 20%.

In reality, representative democracy is precisely that.

Does man have "free will"?

Yes, only tempered by reality of life and competition, which forces us to evolve to conform to the 20-80 rule.

But we still have "free will" only in our knowledge. We can choose to learn and know things. Our knowledge is unrestrained by the reality of life and competition.

Religion often say man has "free will", and yet God has laws.

That is a logical contradiction. If God has granted us true "free will", then we are "free" to decide what is Good and what is Evil.

If God already told us what is Good and what is Evil, then we did not have "free will" in that 1 true decision.

Compared to that 1 decision, all other decisions in life pales.

Thus, I think, man to have "free will", must not take Religious laws. For true God would not force such a decision upon creatures he gave "free will" to.

No, If I asked God, "what is Good?"

God would answer, "I cannot tell you that. For if I did, I would have chosen all decisions for you in Life."