'Lam' according to the inimitable Alan White ('inimitable' is an overused word: it's use should be restricted to describing Alan until further notice to allow it to regain its power). The remark appears in Alan's review of Tim Mawson's new book, Free Will: A Guide for the Perplexed (my own review of the book is here). Libertarians come in lams, Alan thinks, because they are in full retreat in the face of the "steadily growing scientific literature that shows that human nature and action is overwhelmingly a function of biological mechanisms that only very arguably could be influenced by anything like quantum processes -- and then only by sheer chance." I must say my reading of the prospects for libertarianism is quite different from Alan's. Mark Baluguer Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem argues convincingly that nothing in contemporary neuroscience is incompatible with libertarianism. I do see a possible threat in contemporary cognitive science to free will, but the threat is to any kind of free will, not libertarianism: the threat is that agency will decompose into so many relatively independent, and sufficiently stupid, mechanisms that it will become implausible to think of human beings as sufficiently unified loci of agency to hold them responsible for what they do (I do think extant versions of libertarianism are flawed, but my arguments are conceptual rather than based on the science).
So I'm not sure that we should follow Alan's suggestion and adopt 'lam' as the collective noun for libertarians. Better suggestions? And for compatibilists?