What do we do while deciding if free will exists?

[Mudhammam]

An absence of libertarian free will is only controversial because people don't understand what it is they mean by the term. It possesses an element of mystery and this, to them, is sufficient to somehow embolden life with a concept of freedom that they find necessary for something like ultimate moral responsibility. Without "choice" unrestricted by natural coercive influences they see no room for attributing behaviors to the individual as a "self in absolute control" of their actions. This is superfluous. "Will" means nothing more than "character." Your character is developed over time, and it includes your ideas (which is why many of us anti-religionists find the battle for ideas, and absolute freedom to question them, so important), which are usually instilled by authorities when you are young and later on by reason when you have learned how to properly follow it on your own. Your ideas are restricted to your experiences. Your passions and your thoughts often conflict, as do your desires with those around you. When your character is "free," as in free from the restrictions of others' desires imposed upon yours, you are acting according to your "free will." This action is never spontaneous even if seems to be in the moment. Reflection always reveals causes, either physical or psychological or rational. When it results from your character (as it has developed, beyond your complete or "ultimate" control), we punish you as the chiefly responsible party, in hopes that one of us will conform your thoughts or impulses. When you misbehave "out of character," as in the case of a mental breakdown, we show more sympathy. I don't see how losing "free will" in the libertarian sense effects life at all as we already naturally think and act with the sense in which free will actually exists.