Did not being free to choose ~A negate your free will in this situation?
Remember you freely chose A not even knowing that ~A was not a ''real'' option. You freely deliberated and went with A

?

well then if you like, think of it A as getting the $5 and ~A as getting the $100.

heck pretend he shows you the $5 and the $100, and for whatever reason you choose the $5 and he gives it to you.....and then retorts he would not have given you the $100.

This doesn't mean I didn't freely choose A.

If you point to a particular hand, and you say, "I choose that hand", then you have chosen that hand. To say, "I choose that hand" indicating a particular hand, is one way of choosing that hand. It is what is called a "performative utterance". A different example of a performative utterance is saying, "I promise to do so-and-so). When, in appropriate circumstances someone says, "I promise to do so-and-so", that is, in itself, the act of promising to do so-and-so. And similarly, when you point to a hand, and say the words, "I choose that hand", that is, in itself, the act of choosing that hand. To say, "I choose", in appropriate circumstances is to choose.

Whether you chose freely depend, of course, on whether when you uttered the word, "I choose...." you were under compulsion. If not, then you chose freely. If you were compelled to utter those words, then, of course, you did not choose freely.

It sounds like you agree with me. Yes, no one is forcing me to choose one or the other. You simply freely chose the $5.

If he holds out a $5 and a $100 and you take the $5 then you chose to do so.

It doesn't matter nor did it negate your free choice that he wasn't going to give you the $100 because you chose the $5. No one forced you to choose the $5. Though had you tried to choose the $100 you would have been forced to take the $5.

essentially you were free to choose A and not free to choose ~A. Since you chose A you did so freely. Had you attempted to choose ~A you would have been forced to take A thereby making your choice not free. But since you chose A initially, you did so freely.

Agreeing with you is not the same thing as agreeing with your argument. I may agree with Obama that the distribution of medical care in this country needs improvement. But that is where my agreement with Obama ends.

A friend says, "I've got $5 dollars in one hand and $100 in the other.....pick a hand, any hand and I'll give you whats in it."

You then choose the left hand.

He opens his left hand to reveal the $5 and he proceeds to hand it to you.

After doing so he remarks, "It's a good thing you chose the left hand because I wouldn't have let you choose the right."

Did you or did you not have free will in this situation?

Let the left hand be A and the right hand be ~A

Did not being free to choose ~A negate your free will in this situation?
Remember you freely chose A not even knowing that ~A was not a ''real'' option. You freely deliberated and went with A

I say no, because you freely chose the left hand. It doesn't matter that you weren't going to be able to choose the right because you freely wanted the left.

What is ya'lls opinion on this?

But you not only were free to choose, you chose. What did the friend mean when he said that had you chosen the other hand he would not have let you choose it? That he would not have given you what was in that hand? That doesn't mean that he would not have let you choose it. It means that had you chosen it, he would not have honored the choice. That is different from your not choosing it, isn't it?