Sure, it's combatible with compatibilism (e.g. similar to Frankfurt's ideas) but it's not one of the classic variants. I find incompatibilistic (sp?) theories hopelessly dualistic.

>But it's not a scientific view, it's a moral one.

I'd say it's fundamentally a philosophical one, on the nature of self, and only derivatively a moral one. I also don't think they are "scientific" views on such matters, as they transcend observation.

(As for the moral part: I don't think morality is about what we "freely chose" to do: rather it's about who we are -- the choosing after all is secondary and stems from that. This reconciles morality with both the influences of a personal history beyond one's control, and the person's "agency").

>However, most people would disagree with you. The lay person's view are actually more of a libertarian view of free-will.

Yeah, but the "most" part shouldn't matter, as reality is not a popularity contest. It's only whether they are right that matters.