A couple days ago, when I saw three men taking turns standing and panhandling at the southbound exit ramp, 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? In other words, what are their specific needs compared to other people who can or cannot access places in the public to beg? 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 and choosing to be a panhandler; and 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 seem optimal that those receiving, and in need of, charity receive it 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 exists sufficient entities or individuals to perform this role (whether private, faith-based, or governmental), 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 no such entities, 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 who were able to go into the public and effectively market their needs would tend to gain more. Those individuals who were too ill to function, and did not have other support, would starve or die from exposure or from their illnesses.
A further problem 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.
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. I also wonder if such random acts 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. Unfortunately, because there are not enough of them, and because we are currently too imperfect, random and private acts of charity are currently insufficient to address this problem.
Loren M. Lambert © July 13, 2012
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? In other words, what are their specific needs compared to other people who can or cannot access places in the public to beg? 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 and choosing to be a panhandler; and 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 seem optimal that those receiving, and in need of, charity receive it 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 exists sufficient entities or individuals to perform this role (whether private, faith-based, or governmental), 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 no such entities, 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 who were able to go into the public and effectively market their needs would tend to gain more. Those individuals who were too ill to function, and did not have other support, would starve or die from exposure or from their illnesses.
A further problem 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.
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. I also wonder if such random acts 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. Unfortunately, because there are not enough of them, and because we are currently too imperfect, random and private acts of charity are currently insufficient to address this problem.
Loren M. Lambert © July 13, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment