You are using circular logic that just doesn’t cut it.
It would be the same if I gave a bum $10 and stipulated that he buy food and not booze with it.
So it’s best to let the bum starve in streets than to make the attempt to help because he may use it to get drunk?
If that’s true, then no drunk or drug addict would ever receive the help they need.
“It very well could be put around Newt, because of the good intentions bad result aspect.”
Nope. Intent is everything and underlying reason to give in the first place.
Otherwise, what would be the reason to try to help anyone at all.
No, it wouldnt be like that at all. First, we are not the only resource that the UN has, so we dont need to give them money to begin with. Second, if multiple groups are giving money, and one says dont use mine for “x,” then the group can just use someone else’s for “x” while their total amount of money has gone up. That lets them slide pre-designated money to China, and put ours in another slot., which allows them to give the same amount to China. It is no different from the government giving to PP with a no abortion clause. Maybe PP doesnt use the govt money for abortions, but now they have more total revenues and can slide other money in.
You created a strawman with completely different circumstances.
And intent is definitely not everything, in fact it is pretty meaningless. Results are what matter. Helping people doesnt rely on intent.