Gaddafi is Dead: Libya is Free (to/of what?)

In Gaddafi’s, as in Saddam’s or Milosevich’s  “Dictatorships” I always saw some hope of  resistance to the tremendous chivalry of the US Army, to their unstoppable mission of exporting “Democracy and Freedom”, to their incredible generosity in sacrificing their citizen’s lives and billions of dollars with the aim of protecting the oppressed.

Despite the principle of self-determination and the notion of state sovereignty it seems that NATO cannot keep its soldiers at rest and that the best way to employ them is to eradicate any form of government that is not allowing Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand to rule its nation.

I believe today is a sad day, a day in which another stone for the construction of a monopolized and enslaved world has been set. A day in which a nation has lost a dictator simply to fall in the hands (hand) of another one; a day in which (but I should be used to this) only one part of the story has been told.

In the overwhelming media coverage of a Free Libya we are perhaps forgetting to ask ourselves the question “free to what?”. It is free to put itself on the market (the free market) and wait for the Invisible Hand to determine its price, the price of its people, of its resources. And mostly, I believe, we are forgetting that the Invisible Hand is not free, but is controlled by guns, by missiles, by air carriers, by bombs. We are forgetting that from now on the price of these people and of these resources will be artificially kept low by these instruments of prevarication and of domination to ensure the richness of the owners of the instrument.

My sympathy to Libya and its people, who have only lived passing from one domination to an other one, from colonialism, to imperialism.

US Soldier proudly posing with a 16 years old CIVILIAN he
killed FOR FUN in Afghanistan!

P.S. Careful Libya: these are the things that the US troops like to do once they take control of the country: 

Compulsory freedom: the paradox of democracy

Democracy is founded on the game of the majorities, a silly game, considering that if you are lucky you get 49% against 51%.

Anyway, the will of the majority imposes itself on the one of the minority.

Through voting every person older than 18 can express his/her will.

In democracy everything is permitted, as long as more than 51% of the voting population wants it.

It is also possible to change the constitution, with a bigger percentage, yes, but it is possible.

.... And so one beautiful sunny sunday morning we are all called to the polls (if it's raining they don't even try to have elections because the seats would remain deserted).

I also go, I also go to vote.... of course only if it's a sunny day.

Right, left, center right, center left, moderate, liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, communist, socialist, progressive, constitutionalist, populist... and you are there and have to put a cross somewhere. But where? I think one puts it a little bit randomly, not really convinced, not so deeply informed, only somewhat proud to be a Citizen (with a capital C).

But you know how it is, after a while you get a little bored to randomly cross boxes now and then, and perhaps the weather is not so good, perhaps the government fell during the winter... and the result is that  the voters are less than 50% of the population with right to vote. 

So I ask myself: why do we still have a democracy? The majority has expressed itself very clearly: it doesn't want to vote, but democracy is founded on the notion of voting, which is the basis of our freedom. Ergo the majority does not want freedom... but we don't have the freedom to refuse this freedom. We have the freedom to vote and propose anything except the abolition of freedom! 

I think democracy is a bit out of fashion, perhaps it's time for a bit of dictatorship, or for an elitist oligarchy, or for an illusion of anarchic freedom, or for nostalgic monarchic revival!

Why have we never seen on a ballot such an array of options: democracy, anarchy, dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy?

Thus in democracy all freedoms are contemplated except the freedom of non−freedom... And this had already been discovered by the mathematician Gödel, who stated, in his

incompleteness theorems, that a system is either coherent or complete, but never both!

Our freedom is compulsory: we can make all the laws we want, but we cannot subtract ourselves from the sweet obligation of freedom!