I'm fascinated by human nature when it isn't under the microscope of morality, and when it's left to its own selfish devices. And would appreciate your imput into what I've outlined below. I oppose what I consider a frivolous and often futile expenditure funded by the taxpayer: foreign aid. Especially that paid to Third World nations. I consider it largely unproductive, as it seems to be getting its recipients absolutely nowhere in terms of improving their societies. As well as being concerned about whose - often dubious and downright criminal - hands it ends up in. I want no part in contributing towards foreign aid drawn from taxes levied against my earnings. So I propose this hypothesis: What if the raising of foreign aid (financial or material) was removed from the stewardship of government, and place in the hands of a Non Governmental Organisation (NGO). What if any person or entity were given the option of voluntarily contributing to a trust fund whose funds were released whenever necessary, instead of having their earnings contribute towards taxpayer-funded aid that is set aside in every year's national budget? Consider this scenario. Government no longer collects and distributes foriegn aid. It's collected and distributed by an organisation that falls under the remit of an official ombudsman, and as such is subject to scrutiny and annual audits. A body of representitives, with no ties to government, is appointed to assess and authorise payments to applicants. Now, I'm well aware of the argument that foreign aid give the governments (and bussinesses in their respective countries) leverage in the territories that recieve foreign aid. And I appreciate that the noticeable dip in contributions under my proposed scenario would affect that leverage. But as it stands today, foreign aid seems to perpetuate the problems its meant to be tackling. It's used as a short term fix to a greater problem, and often falls into the hands of corrupt officials and/or regimes. I believe that if removed from the stewardship of government and reliant on voluntary donations, there'd be a lot less in the pot to distribute as a result of not being drawn from the public purse. As such, I believe there'd be a greater impetus to pay closer attention to where financial and/or material aid goes once it reaches its intended recipient, as consciencious donors would be more concerned with where their donations are going and what they're being used for. I think that under such a scheme there'd be a more focused attempt at solving a problem that is now subject to a marked decrease in funds, that aren't drawn against the national budget. I welcome your opinions and criticisms; and appreciate your patience with such a drawn-out OP.