I recently read Michael Gerson's attempt to justify "targeted" foreign aid, and, weak as that attempt may be, I noticed among the comments some others who attempted to defend foreign aid, on both "humanitarian" and "pragmatic" principles. So, though I thought the argument about foreign aid had been settled in conservative circles, it appears there is still a need for discussion.

First, allow me to make the most basic argument, the one that should end all discussion, but rarely does. The government does not have the authority to take money form one individual to give it to another. And if it cannot take money from an individual to fund welfare domestically, then it certainly doesn't have the authority to take money to fund welfare internationally by calling it "foreign aid".

And for conservatives, that should end the debate. However, despite their consistent opposition to welfare, it seems some conservatives think that welfare is fine so long as it is done outside the country for "humanitarian" or "pragmatic" reasons.

The pragmatic arguments take the form of the old cold war debate. if we don't give money to third world nations, then they will drift into the sphere of China or the Islamic terrorists or North Korea or Iran. However, that makes little sense. If these nations are so weak they would die without our aid, then why do we care if they drift into the orbit of our enemies? They would be a drain on our enemies' resources while providing no benefit, so let them go, it would only be to our advantage. On the other hand, if they are strong enough to be a real threat, and are only prevented form doing so by our bribes, then it si foolish to continue to give them aid. After all, the only thing keeping them from opposing us is that our bribe is largest. Should we ever fail to bribe them adequately, they woudlt hen turn all our aid against us. So it makes no sense to fund future opponents. Better to let them turn against us now and save our resources.

Nor do the humanitarian arguments fare much better.

Admittedly the humanitarians have become more savvy. They have recognized that the old form of aid was harmful, that it was often siphoned off directly by dictators and helped prop up failed regimes. And so they have started admitting to these failures and now claim that new "targeted" aid goes directly to the beneficiaries without propping up failed regimes.

However, that argument is rather myopic. The truth is, anything which benefits the subjects of a dictator benefits that dictator. If a dictatorship does not have to feed their citizens event he tiny amount they do thanks to humanitarian aid, it frees their resources for other, more nefarious, ends. In addition, by removing the harmful effects of the dictatorship it allows the citizens to continue thinking their oppressors are not doing any harm. By removing the harmful effects of supposed "reforms", such as farm confiscation, they even allow people to believe such measures are beneficial and perpetuate the same sort of tyranny we have seen for generations. So, though it may same "humane" to stop immediate suffering, by allowing the conditions that caused that suffering to go on, we actually end up making things worse, not better.

And that, in a nutshell, is my argument. Not only is foreign aid well outside the proper scope of government, but even on the dubious practical or humanitarian grounds offered it still fails to achieve what it is supposed to. It may appear "heartless" and may make some feel guilty, but there is simply no reason we should continue to ship money overseas, as it does the beneficiaries less good than harm, and certainly provides us with none of the diplomatic or strategic benefits suggested. In the end, it is as much of a waste of funds as any domestic welfare scheme.

POSTSCRIPT

I see in the comments tot he article that two new themes have arisen. First, confusing military aid, a legitimate function of government as an extension of defense policy, and humanitarian aid, allowing people to argue "we give more aid to Israel than Africa". This is absurd, as providing aid to allies to help in national defense is a legitimate governmental function, while providing welfare abroad is not.

The second argument is that China is competing for "resources" in these nations. However, that raises the same question I asked of the "pragmatists". If these nations have so many resources, why do they need aid? And if they can mine them, why not just buy them rather than send aid to try to somehow "control" them? It makes little sense to talk of aid as a means to get resources. It seems those making this argument played too much Risk and spent too little time studying how markets work.