Compatibilism isn't simply a language game. The "free will" question has centuries of ethical baggage attached to it that are critical to a functioning justice system, among other concerns. Compatibilists basically say that although basic scientific reasoning would assert that there is no Ghost in the Machine, and that true libertarian free will is a delusional fantasy, that anything that comes from the brain of a single individual is that individual's free will, by definition.
If I hold a gun to your head and force you to do something, that isn't your free will, but if you choose to do something without my influence, that is your free will. Whether you actually had the option to make another choice (whether any specific moment in time has multiple different future paths based on some magical internal rational agent) is irrelevant.
You are "simply" along for the ride, but it is still you making your decisions, as opposed to someone or something else.
> The "free will" question has centuries of ethical baggage attached to it that are critical to a functioning justice system, among other concerns.
In that case the concept is detrimental to our justice system. Take away free will and it still makes sense to protect society from dangerous agents, the only thing that changes is the notion of justice being somehow predicated on retribution and punishment instead of rehabilitation and restoration.
> that anything that comes from the brain of a single individual is that individual's free will, by definition.
In that case free will is the effect of your past causal history molding the neuronal structure in your brain, your brain's current chemical composition combined with electrical signal processing. Describe where there is something "free" in that.
> If I hold a gun to your head and force you to do something, that isn't your free will, but if you choose to do something without my influence, that is your free will.
That does not make any sense. It's not like I can choose to ignore my self preservation instinct when I'm on top of a tall building, but suddenly can't ignore it when being threatened by you. You seem to claim that we are influenced by our environment only in some subset of circumstances. How can you tell when that switch is turned on or off?
> Whether you actually had the option to make another choice (whether any specific moment in time has multiple different future paths based on some magical internal rational agent) is irrelevant.
How are you defining free will if the ability to make choices is irrelevant? Also it seems to contradict your previous sentence that I have the ability to make a choice unless you are influencing me.
If I hold a gun to your head and force you to do something, that isn't your free will, but if you choose to do something without my influence, that is your free will. Whether you actually had the option to make another choice (whether any specific moment in time has multiple different future paths based on some magical internal rational agent) is irrelevant.
You are "simply" along for the ride, but it is still you making your decisions, as opposed to someone or something else.