So civilized man moves into an area.  He builds houses which he owns,  in keeping with God’s law.  Do not steal implies that property ownership is good.  He forms a government to peacefully handle relationships between people in public spaces, again a good thing.  He grows tired of walking in the mud and so puts a boardwalk in front of his property.  But the streets are still a mess so the community gets together and paves them.  But who owns the streets?  The community does, they put in the effort, of time or money.  Yet they share the streets with outsiders because, we are an hospitable people.  But then addicts want to live on the streets.  Streets they didn’t build, or put any effort into, streets they show no respect for.  They spread garbage and drug needles all over the street. Is it inhospitable for those who put the effort into them, and those who maintain them, and those who respect the system handed to them, to ask the homeless to leave?

Self Portrait as a Beggar. Rembrandt. c.1630.

What are some other options?  Maybe these people can’t afford to meet the high standard of living required in the US today. Either by choice, laziness, or physical/mental incapacity.  But we don’t really know which is which anymore.  There are so many safety nets, again provided by the people, by their sweat, that it makes it hard to tell what is real.  But let’s consider the real cases, those who honestly can’t.  Who should take care of them?  Again God’s Law is pretty clear, their immediate families, then extended families, then the church(Ruth, I Tim. 5:8).  But there is a lot of breakdown here, families are broken down.  Whose fault is that?  Do we create communities legally or culturally that encourage families to cohere?  I think it’s pretty clear we don’t.  We are all mostly fine with divorce, including most in the church.  And government policies attacking families at every turn are also widely accepted. So the first line of defense is a failure.  What about the second?  In a further burden on these people the responsibility, which should be part of church ministry has been pawned off onto the government.  And the government doesn’t have a stash of money like most people think.  Those are resources deducted from every paycheck everyone earns.  Which means it’s a further burden to going to work every day.  Which creates more homeless. Because you not only have to earn enough to make your employer money, you have to make enough to pay the government to attack the family and handle the poor—poorly.  It’s no wonder some people just throw up their hands and live on the street, especially in California, where it’s warm.

So, what about people who really can’t contribute enough to afford living in the high standard created by our culture?  Well let’s say they can contribute some, they could work or do a task which would cover some percentage of their expenses.   Unfortunately they are not allowed to.  Welfare programs discourage work.  It’s all or nothing.  In addition minimum wage laws make it illegal for people who are not capable of producing the minimum wage to work.  So instead of encouraging people to be productive, to contribute even what they can, we tell them to stay home or on the street and that we will pay them a pittance to do nothing.  This seems really dumb.

Also, who decided that everyone needs to live in a gold plated society? Most cities have rules about minimum housing size/quality supposedly to prevent slum lords and help the poor.  But again they are pricing the poor out of the market.  If you can only afford 200 square feet, you are not allowed to make a private contract with someone for that space, because it’s illegal.  Again, it’s all or nothing.  And what about forcing landlords to charge the 200 square foot price for 500 square feet? Why isn’t that slavery?  Why should he put in the effort or money into building something of value and then be forced to give away free value?  Or you might say the government could subsidize it.  It’s really the same thing, only now you just got the government to go take money from person A the taxpayer, to give to person B.  You have made A a slave of B.  Of course people can freely give their money to help people in need.  That’s charity, the duty of the church, not the business of government.  And because no one connects these things anymore, they vote in more and more luxury items like parks, pools, bike lanes, running paths, walking paths, biking paths, open space and more parks.  Because they think it’s free.  But all of these things  drive up the cost of housing, in two ways, by decreasing the supply of land available for houseing and by raising taxes on existing property to pay to build and maintain them.  Maybe some people could form communities and actually afford all these things, but most can’t.  Forcing a gold plated society is generally immoral, when not based on charity, especially when you can’t afford it.    Making an affordable society illegal is also immoral.

People today want to talk about social justice.  Well slavery, destroying marriage and the family, and attacking what the poor can afford all seem pretty unjust to me.  You want to rewrite the definition of the family to suite your lust, this mess is the result.  You want the conveneince of leaving your marrige when it gets hard, this mess is the result.  You want to let the government do your dirty work, and handle hard people so you don’t have to, this mess is the result.  The problem with society out there is the problem with us in here.  And it’s pretty clear from history that if we stop this immoral behavior (I mean really stop it), social problems will work themselves out.  Those who can contribute, will have the meaning in their lives that comes from hard work.  Those who can only contribute a little will share the same blessings.  And those who can’t contribute can be cared for by their families and in those rare cases, by the church.