Why I Do Not Plan to Head to Nigeria to #BringBackOurGirls

Andrew Stiles at the Neocon web site, Free Beacon, is mocking libertarians and using the captured girls in Nigeria as his prop. He should be ashamed of himself.

He writes in a mocking tone, implying a libertarian argument:

How many American parents would proudly send their sons and daughters off to kill or be killed in Lagos or Chibok? How many young men and women aspire to be the first American to fall in Damaturu?

These towns are located in Nigeria. That’s in Africa. President Obama has not publicly discussed sending U.S. troops to Nigeria, but can we trust him?

He adds this note at the end of his spiel:

 This post was inspired by Larry Danielson, Ron Paul and The Guardian.

And the article includes this graphic:

Of course, what Stiles is attempting to do is link  libertarian anti-imperialist views with the tragic situation of the kidnapped girls in Nigeria.

For the record, because Stiles never makes this point, libertarians hold to the non-aggression principle, which means they harshly object to any coercion, including kidnapping, by anyone. That said, this is a very big world, and it is outrageous to think that libertarians can stop or reverse every damn act of aggression in the world. I personally have not lifted a finger to stop the drone attacks conducted by the U.S.---drone attacks, which I consider an outrage. I have not lifted a finger to help Chelsea Manning escape from prison, though I think it is an outrage that Manning is incarcerated. The Nigerian situation is pretty much the same type of situation.

Basic economics teaches that every individual's resources are limited. There is no individual that can save the entire world against all aggression. So, no,  I am not going to Nigeria to #BringBackOurGirls. I am not hiding the fact. Stiles is the big hypocrite here. If he thinks there is some moral obligation to save the world, starting with the girls in Nigeria, than I urge him to get on the next plane to Lagos. But he is not going to go near the place. He is just advocating for U.S. intervention in Nigeria, with money coerced from millions of Americans through the tax system. He is not signalling he persoally wants to pay for any rescue effort. He is really just a propagandist for the government. The government  always likes to use emotional heart tugging situations to promote the power and alleged necessity of government.

  

It's pure evil, but every government does it.

And so, we have the tragic situation of 300 girls captured by a monster, with government operatives using the situation for a photo opportunity.

Coercion and killing is evil, whether it is done by a monster in Nigeria, or a President in the White House signing off on drone attacks, but we can't fight it all at once. If I could snap my fingers, and that would free the girls, I would do so immediately. However, that is not the situation. Tragically, the U.S. Empire has done a lot more brutalizing, killing and kidnapping than the Boko Haram militants of Nigeria could even dream of doing. They both should be dismantled. But, that is not going to happen anytime soon---with either group. But to portray the evil empire as an angelic savior, that libertarianism rejects, is the height of distortion. 

Libertarians call out coercion wherever they see it, both here and abroad. It's impossible to fight it all. Though, if we could do that, it wouldn't be good for Boko Haram or the Empire. I wonder what Stiles thinks about that.