>>>>Should be whole social policy downgraded to crowd pleasing due to 'pragmatic consideration'?
>>>>
>>>>I've not seen anybody suggest that.
>>>>
>>>>If you drop piece of meat here and there then at the end you will be out of meat and ever-hungry crowd (fostered to expect free meat only) will eat you anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Feeding zoo animals carries an expectation that a) the supply of food is inexhaustible and b) the animals are contained so they can't get at you. Of course that is a completely different proposition from large numbers of marginalized people who are legally entitled to roam your street and may be feeling like Robin Hood.
>>>
>>>So? If you provide free food to large number of free roaming people, would not their number increase to unsustainable (in food terms) levels capping the idea with inevitable end?
>>
>>Example - Many so-called countries in Africa that are in the constant state of begging/stealing/killing. Charitable organizations only increase the suffering.
>
>Mostly because the charitable organizations make it too easy for the government NOT to step in and take over. People lose faith in the government, the government gets overthrown, more people drop into poverty due to the chaos, the circle of 'life' continues

The point is that responsible government would not be able to continue 'free food for everybody'-style programs. This largesse is available there just because of great disparity between Western riches and African needs. West can provide so far 'free food' to African natives, but it is already a problem at home where 'free food' includes HDTV, air-conditioning housing, high quality food, sport and entertainment tickets, etc. Truly responsible government (both in Africa and America) is supposed to encourage productive part of population to produce real goods and services thus making whole society wealthier.