My view with cancelling USAID is that the world is a better place because of such. Could it have been made even better if somehow we were able to selectively pick and choose 'worthy' programs and work to transition them out? Maybe, but perfect is not the enemy of good. And the reason I say maybe is because I have high doubts such a transitioning could have been done effectively in anything like a remotely viable timeframe. What genuine impact is felt with USAID's demise will be able to filled by the countless other aid organizations working in places like Africa.

And while perfect is not the enemy of good, bad certainly is. And altruism without consideration of the consequences can easily become harmful. A recurring example is with food. A country will suffer some force majeure and be flooded with ongoing international donations of food. This sends the price of most basic foodstuffs plummeting, local farmers lose their livelihood, and suddenly the country becomes completely dependent upon foreign powers for food. This also happens when countries are encouraged by global organizations to lower food tariffs. This is one of the many ways that altruism can be weaponized - intentionally hurting by "helping."

As for the politics stuff, I do not agree that refusing to advance a Supreme Court Candidate is worse than enabling legal indefinite detention of citizens without trial or representation. And, with all due respect, I'm fairly certain you don't think so either. I can't comment on the past two months because I'm generally quite supportive of it, though I did not vote for Trump either time.

In general though I think the notion of an 'advanced economy' is farcical: You take all of the most critical parts of your economy, ship them off elsewhere, and largely replace them with superflous luxury goods and services. I see this as both exploitative and unsustainable, and it creates behemoth multinational corporations that, in many ways, end up having even more power than governments. I'd like to imagine we learned a lesson or two from the East India Company. But perhaps it's like 1984, we did learn lessons - just the wrong ones.

We are unfortunately destined to disagree on these points and definitely some others. You do write very well and I believe you have some reasons for your positions, but they don't appear logically consistent to me.

Just to descend into pedantry: "Perfect is the enemy of the good." That's the aphorism. The misapplication undercuts the argument you're making from a composition standpoint. It's like you're saying "the sword is mightier than the pen."

Your position on ending USAID is impractical on a moral basis. If the solution you're comfortable with is to risk people dying when the alternative was to take a period of time to responsibly transition obligations, then I conclude that the immediate welfare of those people is less important to you than the shuttering of USAID. Was the situation so dire that we couldn't even ship food and medicine for which we had already paid? This is the equivalent of addressing the trolley problem by arresting the bystander and turning your back on the whole troublesome thing.

This fragment is also disappointing for me: "[...] if somehow we were able to selectively pick and choose 'worthy' programs [...]". Somehow? All of USAID's programs were actively reporting status and commitments and that information was not utilized. I understand that you support one of the outcomes, ending USAID, but the collateral damage was entirely avoidable. You're creating a false urgency here and I can't quite determine if it is a blind spot in your reasoning or a rhetorical trick.

You also counter with:

1) a "slippery slope" argument that leads to the expedient conclusion that we should leave everything to someone else because we wouldn't want to harm someone by helping too much and then having something go wrong thereby leaving them in a worse position than they would be otherwise. That's very convenient.

2) an implicit accusation that all USAID programs existed without consideration of consequences. I say "all" because the existence of any USAID programs that were thoughtfully implemented with sustainability in mind are prevented from sliding down your slippery slope because anyone else would have to do as good as or better than USAID in order for it to make any difference in the outcome.

Can you see how fallacy-ridden your reasoning is here? You should reconcile these beliefs against an ethical framework. Just pick one or two and think about it.