Well I was simply pointing out in my post that for many people, their idea of free will is dictated by ability to do anything and everything they want, which I think is a misnomer. I don't dispute the definition Proto used in the opening post in the basis of philosophical discussion since the definition is correct, it's just that in college I used a different site for studying for my Philo classes:
Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Upon further thought perhaps there is a convergence of Proto's definition and the one I use: In a sense both eschew the notion that free will dictates that people are
not constrained to making
a choice among various alternatives. It just so happens that I place more emphasis on a set of choices than on being not constrained.
And as I said in my post this is where I diverge from the definition because I don't believe in the true lack of constraint in making choices. The problem here is that to confirm true "free will" adhering strictly to the definition, people need to be able to confirm without a shadow of a doubt that no restraining force of whatever form does exist to limit human will. You need to be able to PROVE that restraints don't exist.
Which of course leads us to a simpler version of
probatio diabolica: You can prove that free will exists by providing proof, but you (probably) can't prove that free will does not exist. The problem philosophy has faced for years, of course, is finding said proof. But going back to
PD, how do you prove that the restraints don't in fact exist? Can you claim that proof does not exist because it itself does not, or one simply hasn't found said proof? Of course the absence of proof does not necessarily mean something does not exist.