“No, it’s not tall or grand enough,” my friend’s mom murmured as we wandered through the rows of Christmas trees. We turned back to the one in front of us. It wasn’t bad—just not remarkable enough. You don’t want a mediocre tree to be the centerpiece of your living room, especially not in front of a fireplace. Christmas only comes once a year, and everyone wants a tree that brings a little magic to their home.
I paused, letting my gaze linger on the tree. Suddenly a thought stirred in my mind. Here in the ranch, some trees were undeniably more beautiful, destined to find their place in cozy living rooms, adorned with lights and ornaments. Others, less fortunate, would likely end up as dry firewood. This big contrast in destinies appeared to me as oddly sentimental, but I couldn’t quite pinpoint why.
Maybe it was the lack of free choice for the trees. A tree doesn’t get to choose where it’s planted or how it’s cared for. The lucky ones grow tall and symmetrical and the others just never stand a chance. Their futures seem decided the moment they sprout from the soil.
It’s an interesting analogy, but aren’t we all like Christmas trees in some cosmic lot, waiting to be chosen by the hand of fate? Some of us are born with advantages—intelligence, resilience, charisma—that help us outshine others in the race for limited opportunities. The rest, no matter how hard they try, may never find the same success. I know this might sound too bleak to be true. After all, unlike trees, humans are supposed to have choices. Work hard, study diligently, push through discomfort—these are the mantras we’re told will shape our futures.
But is that really true?
I think it depends. The ability to “work hard” isn’t entirely a choice either—it’s shaped by our upbringing, environment, and countless external factors. If every action we take is part of an unbroken chain of causation stretching back to the past, how much freedom do we really have? Even the choices that seem entirely ours might not be as free as we think.
California is a state deeply rooted in progressive values. To fully justify this ideology, however, I believe we must ultimately grapple with the concept of free will. Without free will as a foundation, Republican arguments might appear more logical—advocating for the strict punishment of illegal immigrants, for example, even if these individuals contribute positively to society, under the rationale that bad means can be justified by good ends.
But do illegal immigrants truly have a free choice? Here, I’m not referring to the surface-level decision to cross the border in pursuit of a better life. Instead, I mean the inherent traits and circumstances that drive such decisions. Are these traits a result of free will, or are they shaped by forces beyond their control too—predetermined by upbringing, environment, or other external factors? If the latter is true, it strengthens the case for policies rooted in compassion and benevolence.
These questions remind me of a philosophy paper I wrote two years ago during my military service. I remember that was a tough time and I had to use whatever free time I could find to finish it up amid a busy training schedule. The paper is technical, but its conclusion continues to shape how I see the world: the boundaries of choice might be far narrower than we like to admit, but we’re better off to believe otherwise. I’ll attach the paper here:
RJWANG19 
Leave a comment