If you buy into my ideas about the difference between constraints and unfreedoms, then political freedom and metaphysical freedom are pretty different anyway.
Asking about the value of political liberty is clearly a consequential question. Some people hold liberty to be good per se, but others would simply look at the utility. A utilitarian would say that you shuold live under whatever political regime gives you the most utility. Or fulfils the most desires, etc.
You might feel that it's good to have choices because you enjoy making them, or because you feel more valued, or like you are in control of yourself more, or are able to define yourself rather than having to follow the path set out for you.
None of this has anything to do with metaphysical freedom - i.e. determinism vs nondeterminism. After all, the freedom to act randomly, what is that? Nothing.
-T

这个问题围绕着是否存在(灵魂、思想和身体/大脑)，或者是否只有物理的大脑/身体。如果存在的只是实体，那么一旦科学家绘制出大脑及其工作原理，他们将最终能够控制所有的行为。即使精神和灵魂存在，科学家们仍有可能控制人类的所有行为，因为为了让一个想法在现实世界中产生某种效果，它需要经过实体的大脑。谁知道这要花多少年呢?你怎么看，微芯片能读取人的思想吗?大脑? ?

Homer, I don't see how that is relevant. Your whole post is summed up as "I think this is a question about determinism."
Why is that relevant for political liberty?
你真的认为科学家能控制人类行为吗?我自己看不出来。科学家们可能会弄清楚这是怎么回事，但根据彼得原理，他们不会是扣动扳机的人。管理层将会进行控制，如果根据过去的历史，我们不需要担心太多。
Or do you really think that the question of whether or not it is good to live in a libertarian society is just the same as whether our politicians control our will?

I was reading John Perry?s essay, ?Is there Hope in Compatibilism?? I read it in order to get up to speed on the problem involving Moral Responsibility and Causal Determination. I have gotten through a third of it. Here is what I got so far:
1. In order to do something you must be both willing and able to do it.
2. There is a typo on page 2, ?Still, if are careful, things will work out.?
3. Who ever made the link between causal determination and free-will? Are there things outside the laws of nature? Is causal determination just limited to the physical?
4. The argument for ?weak laws? based on Hume looks promising. Who ever proved that the laws of nature exist, and that they are not only in our minds?
Here is my take on it. The whole problem lies not in Morals or Ethics, but in Logic and Epistemology. Philosophers think that they have sufficient grounding in Epistemology and Logic to begin creating a system of Morals and Ethics. Yes they can create systems of Ethics and Morals, but the real work lies elsewhere.
I used to take pleasure in studying Logic, Epistemology, and Morals/Ethics. Now I am not so sure about studying Morals and Ethics. Too much work has yet to be done in Logic and Epistemology, so I currently limit myself to this realm. The weakness why we can?t answer these questions about causal determination and free-will lies in us. It lies in consciousness, reason, Kant?s categories, etc. If Immanuel Kant was alive I think he would still be working primarily in Epistemology and Logic (he was mainly a professor of Logic), just like Thomas Aquinas did to Aristotle?s Logic. The other problem is that we think we really understand what we are saying when we use words like ?causal determination.? No one has proved that causal determination even exists. It could all just be custom.
在我看来，因果决定只影响物理对象和自然法则。有些物质存在于自然法则之外。不是每件事都符合自然规律。那太无聊了，会让理性的想法变得荒谬。一个是上帝(如果存在的话)，另一个是灵魂/人类精神/自由意志。没有人能证明灵魂的存在，也没有人能证明它不存在。真正的科学只存在了500年，哲学却有25个世纪以上。在科学创造出能够模仿人类的人工智能机器之前，我不会给科学比哲学更多的信任。
Political liberty? Until philosophers make some advance in consciousness, epistemology, or logic, the reasonable man standard in law works fine.

To: Nick
Might makes Right? Of course Might makes Right, that is the Truth. Socrates responded to Thrasymachus by saying that ?might makes right? is not correct because the leaders could create laws that could hurt themselves. But that was part of the Noble Lie. Philosophers still have the dream that some day in the future governments will be governed by Reason. I share that dream, but the truth of the matter is that ?might does make right? intellectual and physical might makes right. Education is the attempt to try to convince those who have might to allow Reason to govern, but human beings are still governed by their passions.

i believe that nick was referring to Plato's Laws (ref)
anyhow, some accident caused me to listen to an episode of The Connection immediately before coming here. Freedom from Want. Amartya Sen is the guest. Sen has a lot of wonderful historical anecdotes that may speak more directly to what Mohan was getting at.