According to this week’s issue of The Economist, Ecuador’s new Constitution (which it is widely presumed will be ratified at the end of September) is 444 articles long, gives state-owned companies control of the economy, gives the president the power to dismiss the legislature, guarantees a minimum wage for labor, and outlaws foreign military bases.

About that last bit concerning foreign military bases, I’m delighted. President Correa of Ecuador (described by The Economist as a, “youngish Catholic economist") may be a socialist, but at least he understands sovereignty. At least one implication of the approval of this Constitution would be that the United States would no longer be able to operate anti-drug missions from there, which is a plus. Although, there seems to be little else to get enthusiastic about. But, then, I (like almost certainly virtually every citizen in Ecuador), haven’t read all 444 articles.

This will be Ecuador’s 20th Constitution. It reminds me just how resilient (and mercifully brief) the Constitution of the United States is. We’ve been working from the same document for over 2 centuries, and have only once been faced with a serious risk of secession or collapse. Perhaps if we weren’t so fitfully busy minding the business of so many other countries around the world, they might be more inclined to examine our model, which, while flawed, has stood the test of time the way few other nations’ have.

Just before the G8 meeting in Hokkaido, Japan earlier this month, Edward Luttwak and Marian Tupy of the CATO Institute published an article in The Los Angeles Times, called, The Aid Africa Can’t Afford. It reminded me of my recent post about my decision to rescind my ONE Campaign declaration.

Essentially, their article confirms many of my feelings about international welfare programs, but they also suggest that many African countries would be better off if their governments were simply allowed to crumble. The corruption in these governments stems from an oligarchy of elite families using as much as 40% of foreign assistance to buy weapons. Since, as they put it, “interstate conflicts are mercifully rare, those weapons are often used to crush domestic opposition – as has been happening in Zimbabwe.” So, the reasoning goes, we should stop paying for these governments to kill their own people and let these corrupt governments collapse. It’s a tough nut to swallow upon first consideration, but set sentimentality aside for a moment.

With the vast majority of these countries’ citizens living in poverty, and the only ones with any means being the corrupt elites who developed nations are supporting, is it at all likely that the people of these African states will ever be able to develop political structures that truly reflect an attempt to meet their unique needs? How will they overcome? The Zimbabwe example couldn’t be more pertinent. They held an election, and when the ruling party didn’t win outright, they started beating up the opposition.

If other nations, including the United States, stopped meddling in the affairs of these Third World African countries, it seems likely that the only people who would suffer anew would be the corrupt oligarchy currently prolonging the suffering of millions of people across the continent. That, I can live with.

The New York Times is reporting that biodefense researcher Dr. Steven Hatfill will receive a 4.6 million dollar settlement from the United States government for deliberately destroying his reputation in the prolonged and ultimately fruitless investigation of him as a key suspect in the “Anthrax letters” case that killed and seriously harmed several people in 2001. According to Hatfill’s attorneys, the FBI leaked information to the press about Hatfill being a “person of interest” in the case, and even after it was clear he wasn’t the culprit, they failed to clear his name.

Mark Grannis, a lawyer for Dr. Hatfill, said his client was pleased with the settlement.

“This case has been about how the press behaves and how the government behaves,” Mr. Grannis said. “The good news is that we still live in a country where a guy who’s been horribly abused can go to a judge and say ‘I need your help,’ and maybe it takes a while, but he gets justice.”

I’m reminded of Richard Jewell, the man whose name was leaked by the FBI as the prime suspect in the 1996 bombing at the Olympics in Atlanta. His experience was very similar, but, while he filed several lawsuits against various media outlets, he never sought civil restitution from the government. It’s a shame that anyone should have to seek this kind of justice, but encouraging that such justice can sometimes be obtained.

When I signed the ONE Campaign pledge in 2005, I held more or less the same beliefs I hold now. I believe that the more government there is, the less freedom that government’s citizens have. I believe that more freedom for each individual is a good thing. I believe it’s healthy for society and for the economy. I believe that when the government constrains an individual’s ability to lead his life as he sees fit, it weakens society and the economy. I believe some government is necessary, but very, very little. Just enough, in fact, to mediate citizens’ conflicting choices. That is to say, my rights extend only so far as the next person’s.

I signed the ONE Campaign’s Declaration, because, at the time, I believed that the government could prevent future threats to our nation by helping countries that are more likely to devolve into terrorist havens. I was, and still am, offended by America’s failure to recognize that our civil liberties are inherent, and not something we have because we are Americans. As a reaction to that, I thought we ought to be doing more to recognize the lives of those living outside this land of milk and honey. And, of course, I’m deeply affected by the plight of people suffering the world over from poverty and disease.

Lately, though, I’ve been thinking about those motives. My government’s duty isn’t to protect me from the possibility of a threat. It’s duty is to protect me in the actual moment of danger. And, while my government is failing to recognize that our rights are unalienable, no balance can be struck by simply spending more money on the issues that force us to recognize the lives of those living outside our comparatively comfortable borders.

I’ve also faced up to the hypocrisy of condemning domestic welfare programs as ineffective and tyrannical while condoning international welfare programs that seek the same ends. These Third World countries, like many of my fellow Americans, need help. Many of them are in grave need. But paying their bills and sending them supplies that will merely be consumed is no real help at all from one government to another. The ONE Campaign’s motives are good, and I support their goals of ending the corruption that wastes these resources, but I believe their intended methods will never solve these problems.

For these reasons, I rescinded my ONE Campaign pledge earlier today by taking my name and e-mail address off the campaign’s list. Their form asked for a reason, and this is what I wrote:

After careful consideration of the issue, I’ve decided that foreign aid should consist of educational and diplomatic outreach to nations in need, rather than resources which will be continuously consumed with no explicit plan for solving the essential problems of poverty and disease. We should devote ourselves to helping countries that want our help, but not to supporting their continued state of insolvency.

Further, concerned Americans should send consumable aid (money, food, supplies, etc.) directly to the people in need, rather than to our own government (which is where any increase in government spending will come from) in the hopes that they will send it on to those countries in need.

As I wrote to ONE, I do believe there is a way that the United States can help. While flawed, our government is a model for how to build a sustainable nation that can resist collapse caused by either external or internal pressures. Traditionally, we devote a lot more diplomatic resources to countries that threaten us or from which we stand to gain. But, if our government were as limited as it should be, much of that kind of diplomacy would be unnecessary. On the other hand, struggling nations could benefit from a different kind of diplomacy through which we could offer needed guidance. As the expression goes, talk is cheap, and any country can afford it if we’re willing to extend it freely to governments wishing to develop under free, democratic principles.

And, still, my heart aches for those who live on empty stomachs and with bodies ravaged by disease. Many of them are children who will never know what it’s like to be my age. I’m not going to encourage my government to take more liberty from me under the guise of helping those who suffer elsewhere, because I believe that will only lead to continued suffering.

I will, however, make a more personal pledge. I will make a more concerted effort to do something about that suffering myself. I’ll encourage others to do the same. Real people, not amorphous governments with ulterior agendas, can make a difference. That’s you; that’s me; that’s each and every one of us.