"To mean there is a great deal of difference between "aid" and "chairty". The former is done out of self-interest, the latter out of altruistic kindness"
I will not parse words. If you mean investment, SAY "investment".
"Indeed, the private sector must play the largest role. But there is a certain critical mass of infrastructure that government must create in before the reins can be passed"
My position (open for your comment) is that there is no field of endeavor, save for the military, which the government can do that the private sector cannot do better. Good luck trying to find a constitutional basis for international "aid".
"Aid is money well invested. The liberal squandering of money in the past should not be used to punish those in the developing world who might very well be worth investing in"
History tells US a different story....something like money down a rathole.
I respect your right to your opinion - I disagree.
Back to your comment regarding the military, Private investment cannot and will never be sufficient to build infrastructure for the hinterland.
In the US after the use of electricity became practical, private investment would have sufficed to serve the major centers of population. But a government program was necessary for rural electrification. The same is true of telephones and interstate highways and in many circumstances water supply.
The rule of thumb is that the last 5% of the population costs 95% of the outlay and vice versa. Naturally, the more rural a population, the different the number.
The costs are too high and returns too dispersed to rely on private investors. Thus, government investment is needed.
If you read what I wrote you will see I mentioned basic infrastructure.
This can also include a legal infrastructure necessary to protect property.