In The Desert, Allen Wheelis argues that people want freedom of choice on small decisions but not on big decisions, so they contrive necessity. There are both mandatory necessities and arbitrary necessities; if one isn't paying attention the latter can become the former, and most people don't realize the distinction at all, so all necessities feel mandatory. Often the necessity is internal and conscious but not considered part of the "I". To an outsider it would seem that there was a choice, but a very easy one (i.e. one consideration overwhelmed the others, so the best choice was clear), but it doesn't feel that way on the inside. Is this position correct? If so, it might at least partially explain people's willingness to be controlled (by morality, government, cultural norms, etc), as well as the tendencies toward inertia and an unwillingness to ask the big questions. It also accords well with new evidence that having too many options leads to less happiness; perhaps a reduction of perceived control and the abdication of responsibility that accompanies it are mechanisms for coping with the modern world's overabundance of options.