When I refer to social freedom I am talking about the freedom to be who you truly want to be socially; without worrying what others think of you and your actions. And also it must be added – without breaking laws and causing injury, harm or loss to others.
Now there are those out there who state you should conform and ‘fit in’ and they will have their way of fitting in and socially conforming. They may have very strong opinions of conforming and how you should do it. Let’s call them Authoritarians.
The trouble is for these authoritarian types is that somebody of a certain belief system could differ significantly or totally contradict some other authoritarian types, thus causing an issue between them. Examples could be politic, issues around the environment, issues around religious and spiritual beliefs systems, sexuality and opinions on drugs. Some of them could bicker between themselves for eternity.
These authoritarians will also belief in something so strong that they couldn’t let along wouldn’t be able to see another’s point of view. Some of them you just need to humour or completely avoid. Unfortunately some will in certain circumstances also try to get laws past or to get an authority type or symbol involved.
Again I stress that with the type of social freedom I’m speaking doesn’t involve any criminal activities or causing people stress or nuisance. But rather being able to feel free to express yourself in a way that you want to.
From Rational Wiki – Authoritarianism is a very interesting phenomenon. Its adherents don’t necessarily want to “tell you what to do” – as long as, if they disagree with you, someone else in power will tell you what to do…..to read more
I’m going to suggest another type of person – the Libertarian. Taking away the political ideas I’m going to use this description because a libertarian is an individual who doesn’t need many rules, they know the difference between what is wrong and what is right, they will not cause injury, harm of lose to others. They also will ‘live and let live’.
Now who this all relates to PUA is that if you want to approach you should approach because you want to
So it’s now down to you:
- So you want to play societies game?
- Fear to the feminists restrictions?
- Adhere to certain members of society old school, Victorian and out-dated opinions?
- Listen to the wife nagged downbeat, the beta’s and old boys views?
- Think it’s not right to approach a woman on the street, a coffee shop or anywhere?
- That you have to wait for an introduction?
- That fate will serendipitously materialise your soulmate out of the ether? (Yu new-age guys!)
- Listen to the pussies that state you need to buy the woman dinner, to wine them and dine them?
- Your Auntie who tells you to “just be you”?
- Belief that you can’t or shouldn’t do want you want to?
Or would you rather take some risks, man-up, grow, develop and use that testosterone for what it’s meant for?
The choice is entirely yours
For an article on AA please click HERE
Alan Watts had a way of describing the authoritarians and libertarions by calling them prickles and goo – well kinda anyway, please do enjoy
For an article on Social Freedom please click HERE or read below
After defining social freedom and unfreedom in descriptive terms, I shall explore the possibility of measuring specific social freedoms and unfreedoms in terms of their various parameters, and show why these magnitudes cannot be aggregated into a measure of overall social freedom. Finally, I shall deal with value attitudes toward social freedom of agents generally and of proponents of liberalism in particular.
‘Social freedom’ is the concept philosophers, political scientists, and also economists are often concerned with – often without realizing it – when dealing with the subject of liberty. I shall define ‘social freedom’ in descriptive terms, to enable individuals and groups with divergent political and moral views to agree on what it is they disagree about on the normative level. For the same reason, I shall propose descriptive criteria for the measurement of specific social freedoms and unfreedoms. Finally I shall ask under what conditions agents value their own social freedoms and what kinds of social freedoms are valuable to liberals.
Social Choice and Welfare explores all aspects, both normative and positive, of welfare economics, collective choice, and strategic interaction. Topics include but are not limited to: preference aggregation, welfare criteria, fairness, justice and equity, rights, inequality and poverty measurement, voting and elections, political games, coalition formation, public goods, mechanism design, networks, matching, optimal taxation, cost-benefit analysis, and experimental investigations related to social choice and voting.
As such, the journal is inter-disciplinary and cuts across the boundaries of economics, political science, philosophy, and mathematics. Articles on choice and order theory that include results that can be applied to the above topics are also included in the journal. While it emphasizes theory, the journal also publishes empirical work in the subject area reflecting cross-fertilizing between theoretical and empirical research. Readers will find original research articles, surveys, and book reviews.
Springer is one of the leading international scientific publishing companies, publishing over 1,200 journals and more than 3,000 new books annually, covering a wide range of subjects including biomedicine and the life sciences, clinical medicine, physics, engineering, mathematics, computer sciences, and economics.