Extensions of the argument are equally invalid.
There are better and worse ways to distribute foreign aid, they say. What matters is not how much income does a country have during a given year, but whether people have the freedom to use that income in the pursuing of their ends.
If they foresee that they will be deprived in the future of the legal availability over their means, they will shorten their plans until the point in which they hope to be able to use their means.
A wider range of individual abilities diversifies the qualities and quantities of suppliers: there are more people who can do more things. Not only can this aid directly help people, but it encourages economic growth No individual plan can be realized and then almost no material structure can be considered wealth.
He can trace no project, as far as he is part of a central plan. The United States actually tripled the amount it was sending to help with the rising terrorism problem in Afghanistan The output of two individuals working together is greater than the sum of their products when working in isolation.
The recipients of the foreign aid become dependent on handouts from the wealthy, then they fight internally about who gets to keep the largest portions offered. By this he meant that the division of labor is limited by the number of cooperating producers in the society