Good point gib.This answers the postponed answer to Peacegirl as well, at least try to.
A determined choice may be an assumed relation of the very small quantum uncertainty to the hypothesized pre-determination which had a solid basis even back in the day when thought used to have a certain formal solidity , or , thingness.
A determined choice appears to be a contradiction, but as the logical system of contradiction(deduction) gave way to identification through similarity by resemblances (induction)
the mind appeared to fuse the two, so as to given the appearance of freedom of choice.
How this was overcome, albeit as an illusive effort, was through language .
Highly controlled social systems like Communism, were analytically appeared to loosen the ties of central control by the use of such cliches as ‘self determination, and collective consciousness’ It was done by constant reiterated ideograms, which were accepted as truisms.
Freedom is another word, became the rallying cry, where theories of mind were found to be inconsistent with the trumped up rhetoric.
But the contradiction never left the larger context of its derivation, and the result is the arrival within expected symptomatic limits of believability. The New World Order is precisely, the only way to legitimise the abhorrent social conditions in the U.S., over the requirement to place immigration under the microscope where social elements purify over how best to fit into their new adopted countries.
The point to it is, to demark the regional social economic absolutes into the new uncertain ones, by the importation of indigenous outsiders, whose problems only increase their newly thought up innovative ways to get in.
The bar is raised for this issue, contrario, knowing human nature to find even more ways to immigrate illegally, and for the purpose to relativise and revitalise a dying formula.
This is all in the conscious periphery, and sets new limits to and within pre-determined choices, accompanied by changing national and international boundaries.
I did venture outside the basic fragments, in order to bring them together, here, down to earth , as some critics may pounce on any indemonstrable proposition.
This is why the suggestion that a determined choice is illusionary, to cover not only inconsistency, but of basic negation. So if a compromise has to take place, it will be in the ‘should’ course of Kantian argument.
The illusion is hidden, and the argument goes: well truth is contextual and relative, and pragmatic considerations should influence the new vision of what a standard should consist of, as a measure of what a rational man may accept in a governed and determined social construct.