I think the implications for believing in free will (one of the foundations of modern western thought) is to ascribe individuals responsibility for things they cannot possibly control. For example, the number one determining factor of being a wealthy adult, is the wealth level of your parents. Our economy has many of these feedback loops built in, going in both directions, up to wealth and down to poverty. Yet we have a meta-narrative within society which attributes a person's economic outcome to their "choices," a direct relation to belief in free will, which allows us to accept gross wealth accumulation, and excuse squalor and poverty as "deserved."

So if someone is born to Harvard professors and becomes a CEO and someone is born to a single mother who did not graduate high school and becomes a Burger King worker, does it make sense to say the CEO is somehow "more deserving?" Why do we allow for such punitive economic outcomes on the basis of an individual "creating themselves?" Economic determinism is rather obvious, yet we act as if everyone is playing a fair game, on an even playing field, with a fair set of rules, which is obviously not the case.

Can't we all just agree that the CEO was lucky by their birth and genetics, and set up an economic system that does not have these extremes through redistributive tax policy, on the basis that free will is obviously an antiquated notion which actually has dehumanizing affects on how we evaluate humans?