If the services were so encompassing, homelessness would no longer be an issue.
The services themselves are harmed by panhandling:
First, giving panhandlers cash on the street makes people feel like they've fulfilled their philanthropic "obligation" and gives them an excuse not to volunteer at or donate to the services.
Second, and more importantly, the services are comprehensive, but they're not
easy. Until all easier-but-less-helpful alternatives are eliminated, some people will choose to exploit your misguided enabling instead of availing themselves of the services.
Was this a serious response? I hope it was just a bad joke that failed.
What part of "I've never been to LA or San Francisco, so I don't know" did you fail to understand? The existence of a joke, bad or otherwise, doesn't give you an excuse to ignore the rest.
There's a whole system surrounding panhandling, substance abuse, homelessness and crime that your misplaced "charity" perpetuates.
It's obvious this isn't a serious response. For all of your yelling at other people on this thread, trying to shame them into behaving exactly like you do, it sure seems like you're more interested in yelling than actually responding.
Should I assume by the fact that you've resorted to ad-hominem attacks that you have no legitimate arguments left?
Jack, you and others make some valid points for not giving, and I'm listening. But I'm not convinced it's as black and white as you seem to believe. Sometimes, giving can help the recipient and not hurt anyone else.
No, I completely agree: it's
possible for a situation to exist where giving money to a panhandler genuinely helps them and doesn't do any collateral damage.
I'm merely arguing that (a) that situation is very unlikely compared to the situation where giving the panhandler money would cause harm, and (b) it's nigh-impossible for you, not being trained in social work and/or having time to investigate the panhandler's circumstances, to conclusively determine which situation you're in (especially since, in the likely scenario, the panhandler is actively trying to deceive you). Therefore, you must assume you're in the much more likely scenario and act accordingly.
Keep in mind that I'm not arguing against charity. I'm merely arguing for
appropriate and
effective charity. If you want to be charitable, go volunteer in a soup kitchen. Or build a house with Habitat for Humanity (or even the Mad Housers*). Or mentor at-risk youth and help prevent the homelessness in the first place. Or if you really want to give money instead of time, donate to an organization that is better equipped than you are to decide how to use the money effectively.
Of course, those types of appropriate and effective charity require more effort and forethought than simply forking over cash when prompted by a panhandler. In that sense, giving to panhandlers is the "bedpan-and-catheter" of philanthropy. We mustachians are better than that, are we not?
(* I'm a little ambivalent about the Mad Housers, since it could be argued that they're making homelessness more comfortable rather than ending it.... but at least they're an improvement over giving cash to panhandlers.)
