Answering the Question: Is Random Charity Enough?

A couple days ago, regarding the three men that were taking turns standing at the southbound exit ramp pan-handling, I asked:

How much money is any of those specific individuals getting through other means?

How much money are all three of those individuals obtaining from panhandling?

How needy are such individuals compared to others, or in other words what are their specific needs compared to other people who can or cannot access places in the public to beg and how are those needs being met by charity?

The answers: we don't know, we don't know, and we don't know, and we usually never find out.

These questions highlight the dilemma that while charity is generally an indispensable human virtue and while faith-based organizations often appropriately answer and address these issues, not everyone belongs to a faith-based or other charitable organization. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is we have no idea how efficient, effective, and comprehensive acts of random charity are in supporting the homeless and the needy.

For these reasons it appears that these problems can only be addressed by governments. This is because, it is within the realms of possibility that one of the three panhandlers was well to do, one of the three was struggling but perfectly capable of earning a living but choosing to be a panhandler, and that the last was incapable of making a living (or currently unable or dealing with an emergency) and was wholly reliant and in great need of the handouts.

As a general principle, it would therefore seem that it is optimal that those receiving and in need of charity do so through some entity that can assess the individual’s needs and the form and amounts that charity should encompass. Hence, in a society where there are sufficient entities or individuals to perform this role whether private, faith-based or governmental that random acts of charity are counterproductive and as indicated in your comments, do not resolve or adequately address the problem.

In a society in which there are not such entities then only those panhandlers with sufficient abilities, skill and marketing could address their needs so long as there were enough willing to give. In other words, panhandlers that were able to go into the public and effectively market their needs would tend to gain more. Those individuals that were to ill to function, and did not have other support, would in essence starve or die from exposure or their illnesses.

A further problem that I have witnessed is that the severely mentally ill or those disabled by degenerative brain disorders, often alienate, antagonize, and sometimes even terrorize or victimize their friends and family members. It is this population that is most difficult to address. While it would be optimal if the basic needs of all such individuals were addressed when they could not be by the individuals themselves by private and faith-based organizations, that simply has not been the case either in the past are presently.

Moreover, although it is virtuous that individuals do often and without prejudgment provide, “true charity [that] doesn't ask any questions,” as Mel Hensen indicated, I wonder if such random acts often benefit more the giver than those receiving the charitable gifts and may sometimes allow us to hide from or miss the greater needs of others who do not engage in panhandling. It is those rare individuals who do not judge, criticize, condemn or seek to convert the needy but who take the time to learn their circumstances and their needs who are the true champions of our society. And unfortunately because there are not enough of them and because we are currently too imperfect, random acts of charity and even private acts are currently insufficient to address this problem.

Loren M. Lambert © July 13, 2012