This topic tends to generate polarizing and conflicted views, as we can clearly see from the comments here. One side thinks it's cruel and heartless to prevent someone from giving food to a hungry human. The other side thinks that we shouldn't reward bad behavior. The core of the matter is that helping people is hard. I don't mean just token help. I mean really helping in a meaningful way that makes a lasting difference.
An example: consider back in the 80s - 90s where there was a charity trend in at least parts of the United States of sending clothes to Africa. Seems like a good thing, right? How could giving clothes be bad. Clothing is a basic need (in many places), just like food. But what really happened when Americans started sending clothes to Africa? People who have actually spent time in Africa can tell you that the flood of free clothes totally destroyed the local textile industries. People who were making a productive living found themselves unable to compete and out of work/income.
So we see that with free clothes there were significant unintended negative consequences. Why would we expect it would be any different with free food? I totally get the desire to empathize with another human being and genuinely want to help people who found themselves in a very difficult situation with no obvious way to break the cycle. But we need to be aware that our supposed help may actually end up causing more difficulty in the long run. In that case, one could argue that charity becomes a selfish act--the real reason the giver does it is because it makes them feel better about themselves. I'm not making this point in an attempt to justify heartless inaction. I just think that we should put serious thought into examining whether our efforts at charity really make a meaningful difference in the lives of the people we're trying to help.
I don't think anyone is advocating to let the homeless starve. We just need to realize as a society that the small act of kindness that we can provide at the micro scale (giving rides, money, food, etc) can have harsh consequences when observed from the macro scale.
I don't see how you get one from economic situation to another.
Would subsidised housing for the homeless destroy rental values? Would free food destroy the restaurant business?
Isn't it more likely that a relative small spend would increase property values and restaurant footfall?
Most people don't like having to deal with beggars and if beggars disappear from an area, isn't it at least worth considering that it could become more popular with potential customers and residents?
An example: consider back in the 80s - 90s where there was a charity trend in at least parts of the United States of sending clothes to Africa. Seems like a good thing, right? How could giving clothes be bad. Clothing is a basic need (in many places), just like food. But what really happened when Americans started sending clothes to Africa? People who have actually spent time in Africa can tell you that the flood of free clothes totally destroyed the local textile industries. People who were making a productive living found themselves unable to compete and out of work/income.
So we see that with free clothes there were significant unintended negative consequences. Why would we expect it would be any different with free food? I totally get the desire to empathize with another human being and genuinely want to help people who found themselves in a very difficult situation with no obvious way to break the cycle. But we need to be aware that our supposed help may actually end up causing more difficulty in the long run. In that case, one could argue that charity becomes a selfish act--the real reason the giver does it is because it makes them feel better about themselves. I'm not making this point in an attempt to justify heartless inaction. I just think that we should put serious thought into examining whether our efforts at charity really make a meaningful difference in the lives of the people we're trying to help.