Does compatibilism recognize a difference between "we have free will" and "we have a will"?

I'm looking for a simple an aesthetic symbol for humanism and humanity, from our ancestors looking at the stars and wondering why, and telling each other stories, and caring for each other in the distant past, to the invention of agriculture, democracy, civilization, the Enlightenment and the Renaissance, the improvement in the human condition, technology and knowledge and truth.

I think some of you know what I mean. Humanism Pt. 3 style chills.

Ideas I've thought of: hands, sails, brains, seeds, eyes, sprouts, flames. I was looking at getting symbols of both Apollo and Dionysus, but Dionysus in particular doesn't have anything particularly minimalist. An outline of human isn't connected strongly enough to the ideal I want to symbolize. The typical Happy Human is ugly. The "h+" thing is too narrow, and not visual enough.

EDIT:

The most appealing idea for me currently is a small sprout with a candle flame in between two or four leaves, inspired by the image and story here, maybe with the roots somehow obviously analogs of neurons. What do you all think of that?

Yes, free will is a good example of a subject that is often made ridiculously complicated. (Edit: Removed the bit that was wrong). Here's my quick (edited) attempt on free will:

What does it mean to have Free will? Presumably it means that "you" decide your actions freely. If "you" is your conscious brain, then clearly you do affect your decisions for if this were not the case you would not have evolved a conscious brain in the first place. The fact that it can be predicted what decision you will make does not make it any less your decision, so this is irrelevant. However, your actions are restrained by your environment and influenced by instincts and unspoken thoughts and feelings as well. All in all, it can be said that we have limited free will, though the concept itself is confusing and better done away with.

I was actually thinking about writing and posting a Mini Meta-ethics Q&A in this style. There is so much overly convoluted writing and general confusion on the subject that I feel there would be added value in this. What do you (and others) think?

Well, that sounds obviously wrong - it would mean you could start with a universe you liked, scale up the population without changing average quality of life at all, and end up with a universe in which you want to destroy all life.

In that case (which I believe is not true for almost any modern human, so this is a purely theoretical answer), it's logical to conclude that it'd be good for you to cease to exist. In order to prefer that others so cease (assuming you're a utilitiarian), you'd need to believe that every individual has a similar weighting.

Only if you also do not expect there to be enough happy living to outweigh the amount of suffering.

If suffering has far greater dis-utility for you than happy living has utility, is it logical to conclude that it'd be a good thing if the universe ceased to exist, thereby preventing all future suffering at the cost of all future life?

One person being horribly tortured for eternity is equivalent to that one person being copied infinite times and having each copy tortured for the rest of their life. Death is better than a lifetime of horrible torture, and 3^^^3, despite being bigger than a whole lot of numbers, is still smaller than infinity.

Would you prefer that one person be horribly tortured for eternity without hope or rest, or that 3^^^3 people die?