The three main causes of homelessness in America are sudden economic misfortune, mental illness, and addiction.
People in the first category are actively looking for a way to get back on their feet. Giving them money is better than giving them a meal, a ticket, or a bit of clothing. They know what they need most, and will spend their money accordingly. Insisting that they choose from my list of pre-approved spending options does more harm than good, from a utility standpoint. From an emotional standpoint, it's condescending and demeaning.
In the second case, the person has few employment options and a weak support network, otherwise they would not be out on the street. They won't use the money I give them as well as people in the first category, but who am I to say what they want or need? I'm not trying to solve a social problem. I'm trying to ease the suffering of an individual.
It's difficult to distinguish people in the third group from the people in the second group, since mental illness and addiction often work in tandem. I don't bother to try. Anyway, the addict's hierarchy of needs is roughly: Food > Drugs > Shelter. If I buy them a sandwich, they can spend the remainder of their money on drugs. If they're a serious addict, a lack of charity won't stand between them and the drugs they need. If they can't scrounge up enough money through legitimate means, petty crime is the next step. Overcoming addiction is a complicated process that comes from within. You can't starve the addict into going clean. If I give a homeless person a dollar and that money goes towards drugs, that's a shame, but at least it eases their suffering for a moment.
Again, giving money to a homeless person isn't a long-term solution to social problems. It's a small gesture from one individual to another. They have a cut, so I give them a band-aid. Homelessness is a difficult and complicated problem. Withholding charity won't suddenly result in homeless people straightening up and flying right. The reality is that many of them, at least in the short term, are unemployable. Withholding charity just increases their suffering.
People in the first category are actively looking for a way to get back on their feet. Giving them money is better than giving them a meal, a ticket, or a bit of clothing. They know what they need most, and will spend their money accordingly. Insisting that they choose from my list of pre-approved spending options does more harm than good, from a utility standpoint. From an emotional standpoint, it's condescending and demeaning.
In the second case, the person has few employment options and a weak support network, otherwise they would not be out on the street. They won't use the money I give them as well as people in the first category, but who am I to say what they want or need? I'm not trying to solve a social problem. I'm trying to ease the suffering of an individual.
It's difficult to distinguish people in the third group from the people in the second group, since mental illness and addiction often work in tandem. I don't bother to try. Anyway, the addict's hierarchy of needs is roughly: Food > Drugs > Shelter. If I buy them a sandwich, they can spend the remainder of their money on drugs. If they're a serious addict, a lack of charity won't stand between them and the drugs they need. If they can't scrounge up enough money through legitimate means, petty crime is the next step. Overcoming addiction is a complicated process that comes from within. You can't starve the addict into going clean. If I give a homeless person a dollar and that money goes towards drugs, that's a shame, but at least it eases their suffering for a moment.
Again, giving money to a homeless person isn't a long-term solution to social problems. It's a small gesture from one individual to another. They have a cut, so I give them a band-aid. Homelessness is a difficult and complicated problem. Withholding charity won't suddenly result in homeless people straightening up and flying right. The reality is that many of them, at least in the short term, are unemployable. Withholding charity just increases their suffering.