How does the self-doer of AN 6.38 not conflict with anatta?

The third mark of existence states *sabbe dhamma anatta* - all phenomena is not self. Despite that, the following sutta states that there is a self-doer (*attakārī*). Also, this implies free will. How is it that the existence of the self-doer (and free will) does not conflict with the third mark of existence? > “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring > beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, > this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a > doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving > forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no > self-doer, there is no other-doer’?” > AN 6.38 (translated by K. Nizamis) > “Brahmin, if there is this element of approaching, brahmin, then it is > evident then that beings are approaching: this is what beings do > themselves [self-agency], this is what is done by others > [other-agency].” “Yes, sir.” > > “Brahmin, I do not hold such a doctrine, > such a view [that there is no action of one’s own, that there is no > action by others]. For, I have neither seen nor heard of a situation > where one could oneself step forward or one could oneself step back, > and yet say, ‘There is no action of one’s own, there is no action by > others.’” > AN 6.38 (translated by Piya Tan) > “Since there is an element of energy, and sentient beings who have > energy are found, sentient beings act of their own volition or that of > another. > > Brahmin, may I never see or hear of anyone holding such a doctrine or > view! How on earth can someone who comes and goes on his own say that > one does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s > volition?” > AN 6.38 (translated by Ven. Sujato)