However, his decision is determined by his survival instinct, and the fact that he does not want to die. If Joe were to want to die, and choose to walk in front of the car, his decision is still determined by his desire to lose his life. This shows how, although his action is determined by the past (he has achieved a mindset that he wants to enjoy his life for longer), he has a choice as to whether he walks in front of the car. Thus, he still possesses some sort of free will, while maintaining a deterministic standpoint. This lets moral responsibility come into play. If someone has free will, then they are accountable for their actions, and thus society can exist in a civilized manner.
The premise for libertarianism is that moral responsibility exists, and can only exist with true free will. In order to differ between compatibilism and libertarianism, it is necessary to counter the argument for the former first. The compatibilist tries a sleight of hand by changing the meaning of free-will which lets moral responsibility come into play. The problem with this is that determinism, in any form, applies to all parts of the universe. The deterministic position is that all choices made by a person are determined by events preceding that decision. This, in turn, means that Joe has no other choice. Although they believe they can do other wise, all their choices are predetermined. It is already decided that Joe will not walk in front of that car. Consequently, there cannot truly be any idea of moral responsibility for the compatibilist. Unless things can actually be changed by someone's decision-making process, no one can be held responsible for their actions. In essence, a compatibilist's argument is the same in that aspect as a determinist's argument.
.
Following this, the argument of libertarianism can be presented. In society, it is absolutely necessary for the concept of moral responsibility to exist.