>>2669
>If you come across a homeless person in the street, how do you actually help them?
You don't. Social Darwinism.

I mean you can give them change. I guess the old saying works better, "You can give a man a fish he'll be fed for a day. Teach a man how to fish he'll be fed for life."

>>2670
Are you Senator Armstrong?

>>2669
Private charities are much more efficient with their donations than welfare is, there were studies on this, and there were also studies that proved that rich people are more generous than poor people with their money as measured by what percent of their income they give away and not by how much money they give away.

A more complex question is if it's worth helping people, as well as who you're responsible for assuming you do, and this leads to arguments about slave morality and master morality. I personally think it's best to help people help themselves, and to only help people who you personally know, like in a family or a church or your village/neighbourhood or some other small community you're a part of, because then you know that you're not just giving a man a fish, but actually teaching them how to fish and you're not just feeding parasites or subsidizing laziness or other bad behaviour.

>>2679
Ignore everything I wrote here.

Let's be honest, the sheer amount of positive externalities alone in ancapistan would enable an unemployed hobo in ancap to have a comfier life than your average pod-dwelling, bug-eating, soy-drinking taxpayer (yes, "taxpayer" should become a derogatory term) in a statist shithole. The only possible reason someone might be homeless in ancap is because it is a lifestyle that they chose for themselves and not because it would be so difficult to actually get a decent place to stay.

>>2687
> because it is a lifestyle that they chose for themselves and not because it would be so difficult to actually get a decent place to stay.
This is something you see in many Western countries already. Allowing the market to act (relatively) unrestricted for a couple centuries has increased the standard of living to ridiculous levels over time. In the US, with very little fanfare, hunger has been practically eliminated. Not even in the worst depths of poverty does anyone go hungry; the only deaths from malnutrition that do occur are from willful parental neglect, not lack of means. Being "poor" in the US means you clip coupons for canned goods instead of buying organic at the farmer's market. Hell, we have so much food available that people eating too much is a bigger problem among the poor than not eating enough That's because niggers are too retarded to eat properly and just pig out on McZOGnald's and KFC, and not because it's all that difficult to stay a normal weight while poor, but I digress.
Similarly, homelessness is something that really only afflicts the severely mentally ill and drug addicts. If you are of sound enough mind to help yourself, homelessness is not a pressing risk.

I guess I appreciate the political answers, but I was really looking for a personal answer. I have money or time that, say, I'm willing to donate.

Should I? Taking

>>2691
It really depends on the kind of charity. If someone wants to help people that are starving in Africa or something they'll probably donate food or something, but there also needs to exist some long term help for those people to leave that situation instead of keeping them dependent on charity (as the state does). I think both short-term and long-term charity need to exist parallel to each other, you can't keep giving a fish to the man every day, but you can't teach him how to fish if he's starving.

>>2691
>Whenever I think really deeply about a long-term, sustainable way to 'help' someone, I nearly always end up creating some sort of business in my head.
As if that's a bad thing. You might want to check out what Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Rand have to say about the virtue of selfishness, I think they have the right ideas about helping people properly.

>>2679
>>2691
>>2692
Don´t know, "private" charity organisations almost always end up as the common (((NGOs))): False private businesses shilled by the governments to up the number of niggers and instaurare pozzed agendas in dissident countries while not doing anything worthwhile or abusing the local population in the name of "solidarity" instead of letting nature take it´s course.
We should reevaluate when we should make a helpful act and to who.

>>2691
If you want to give really badly the one place I can think of would be your local food bank. Otherwise, long term solutions help a lot.

>>2690
I thought the obesity was caused by the government subsidizing corn farmers since they put corn starch in everything nowadays.

The mental illness part seems like a big part people ignore about homelessness. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people living under bridges and muttering to themselves or screaming into the air. I think they were probably schizophrenic.

>>2669
Private company do make money from giving cherity, at least in my country. They do documentary and air it on national tv, and use the money from royalty then give it to the homeless, ect.

>>2696
Charlatans will always exist, and the state is just a very convenient tool for them. Of course you should be careful when trying to help someone else, it's your money after all; and you have much more incentive do to so if you're doing it first-hand, rather than the government taking your money and doing it in your place.