I'm somewhat perplexed that I know people who are (rightly) critics of the concept of tabula rasa who are also proponents of libertarian free will.
Yes, most philosophers are compatiblists; so, I'm only in a slightly larger minority as a hard determinist than libertarians; but, tabula rasa seems to be an important component in the arguments for libertarian free will.
If innatism is true, which it demonstrably is, libertarianism kinda falls flat on its face. If we are, in fact, born with certain knowledge and with a certain wiring in our brains that we obviously couldn't choose, that's an immediate limitation to free will.
What's more is that it seems that the people who I know who criticize tabula rasa as a concept while defending libertarianism tend to be secular. We talk openly and without controversy about other members of the animal kingdom having innate knowledge and personality traits. Most land dwelling animals know how to walk at birth without being taught. Most canines know how to swim without being taught. We know that pit bulls have different personalities than Australian shepherds. That's all innate. That's not to say that the nurture component is irrelevant; but, it's odd that secular people would think that there's something special about humans in terms of free will when we accept that it doesn't exist anywhere in nature that we've observed.
Compatiblism may still be true in some obscure, philosophical, semantic way; still, that would mean that both free will and determinism are true. I don't see how people can reconcile non-belief in the idea of tabula rasa with belief in libertarianism. If you, as a conscious actor, are in complete control of your thoughts and actions, it's impossible to also say that you have innate knowledge or that any component of your personality is innate.
(I'm referring to libertarianism in the context of the free will debate; that has nothing to do with the political or social philosophy.)