If you had any will power at all then what makes you believe it was free or freely exercised?

a) Believing implies ones consent by free will of choice to a suggestion by the free will of choice of another. Belief contradicts will, hence religion (Latin religo; to bind anew).

b) Power implies "to exert force" aka an emission (life) thrust forwards (inception towards death). For an emission to have potential it requires each ones free will of choice to adapt (need) or ignore (want) all power.

c) If...believe

Believing anything suggested establishes a conflict of reason (agree vs disagree; true vs false; belief vs disbelief etc.)...doing that tempts one to ignore perceivable implication (if/then).

Reason contradicts implication.

d) Had/have implies taking possession/holding onto something...power moves and cannot be held onto; hence the emissions within being FREE will of choice.

It's the suggested rhetoric many are reasoning over, which tempts each one to diminish potential against one another.

e) MAKE, verb - "to compel; to constrain" also contradicts being FREE will of choice. Only nature makes (inception towards death) re-makes (life), hence each one within re-sponding to being made aka to coming into being.

From where or from who did you receive will power?

a) FREE will of choice implies within DOMinance of balance, since only within balance can there be choice. What does balance imply? Motion! Hence motion to momentum (balance) to matter (choice).

All of this can be discerned by each one within...unless willingly ignored.

b) RECE'IVE, verb (Latin recipio; re, respond to and capio, to take)...the RE in receive implies ones free will of choice aka ones response-ability, while taking implies ones free will of choice of want (taking suggested) over need (adapting to perceivable).

c) Who implies person aka per sonos (by sound). Sound sets itself apart into each instrument (within structured mind). Being implies frequency within spectrum of sound, hence being set free within balance aka resonance (need) or dissonance (want).

Few suggest words to distract many from perceivable sound, which implies spell-craft.

To take implies to hold onto/take possession thereof...one cannot hold onto perceivable (inspiration); only onto suggested (information).

Nature isn't for the taking...it moves through each one and needs to be adapted to aka drawn inspiration from. Others utilize suggestion to tempt one to consent aka to take information into ones mind/memory.

The selection from a limited number of choices can easily be manipulated

Thinking like that already implies the manipulation in effect. Being implies ones selecting choice (perception) within all balance (perceivable)...the suggested choices by others imbalance ones choice if consented to.

Chosen ones implies selected by ones choice, hence French élite - "selection; choice".

Choice doesn't need to select among suggested choices; it needs to adapt to perceivable balance, hence balancing as choice, while needing to resist the wanted temptation of suggested choices.

Any choice suggested tempts one off-balance, hence towards choosing a side within a conflict of reason. Few control both sides of every conflict many consent to, because few suggest both sides.

Choice within balance implies center within circumference; jews erect at center, while cutting gentiles off circumference, which implies a circumcision ritual.

Center (perception) within circumference (perceivable) can be tempted off-center through suggestion.

to offer you two choices

a) Only nature offers all (perceivable) towards each one (perception)...any other "offer" implies a merchant of temptation establishing a contract between selling (suggestion) and buying (consent). That's a burned offering if consented to...

b) Oneness (whole) generates ones (partials)...other ones suggest one to count, and ones consent to another ones suggestion implies dual-ism aka dual/duo/two.

Nature implies "one for all and all for one" aka "there can be only one" aka "alone...all(in)one".

Two does not exist within nature unless ONE ignores all perceivable for another ONEs suggestion.

two choices that work to your own detriment.

Because TWO tempts ONE to ignore self for another.

If you have no power over your limited choices

NO implies suggested nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) and if one consents by free will of choice, then one de-nials everything perceivable for suggested nothing.

Consent limits ones choice by selecting the suggested choices from another one...a chosen one.

It took ones ignorance/denial of all power to empower another one, while depriving oneself.

how much will are you freely exercising

a) Exercise implies work (Greek energy) - "internal/inherent power". Each ones free will of choice implies center of energy expressing outwards. How much thereof is expressed implies each ones free will of choice.

b) Energy implies ONE, for all is one in energy; which implies how much can be within energy...each one.

between a few bad choices?

Being implies as choice in-between balance (need/want); while suggested choices tempts one in-between imbalance (want vs not want aka good vs bad).

If one finds self in-between a good vs bad conflict of reason, then that's because one already consented by free will of choice to suggested moralism. That's self confinement, and neither can another get one out of self confinement; nor can choosing sides from suggested choices get one out of ignorance.