Free will as a norm in a structured legal system

I grew up in a Christian family, and I have put some effort into creating social organizational protocols that are rooted in the value of free will. I always felt like I agreed with the morality in Christianity, but also saw a lot of hypocrisy in it. For example, sure, free will is good, but why is it up to a certain religious narrative to give it to people or represent the "authority" that claims it is a good thing. Any free people or indigenous people (like the "wildlings" in Game of Thrones but in real life, maybe Vikings) have of course always assumed "free will" is a normal thing, because, well, it is.

I think part of the answer is in social technology in relation to free will, Laws. I have blogged here about how Law is an extension of the human brain, in the same way Marshal McLuhan saw media as an extension, or appendage or prosthesis of the human brain. Or, how McLuhan or other cyberneticists (or just people in general) understood that physical tools like the wheel, the telescope or a hammer were extensions of the human body. Laws are a specific type of augmentation, they augment social cognition. In contrast to a calculator that augments other types of intelligence, or a photograph that might be an augmentation of visual memory or something like that.

So there is some difference between "natural law" stating that free will is clearly a good thing, which any human or probably even a squirrel would agree with, and building an organized legal system at a massive scale (an "unnatural scale") around the same idea. Today, we have a society of billions of people, and it is extremely complicated.

Since I built BitPeople around the concept of free will, and happen to have been raised with the Christian idea of it (that I do agree with), I think there may be some overlap and that the Christian approach to free will, that formed the basis of the nation-state and the modern world, has had value.

Israel did 9/11.