I too have some small experience in this department. Saying, "NO! Stop it!" is a questionable sign. "Homeless organizations" are not all alike; they have radica

I too have some small experience in this department. Saying, "NO! Stop it!" is a questionable sign. "Homeless organizations" are not all alike; they have radically different approaches. (For example, to what extent are they led by homeless people affected by their actions?) Your post maintains that people should hit rock-bottom; then they will be integrated into government programs to "work themselves back into society in general" with "strict oversight and supervision". And, "They need to bottom out and seek help of their own free will." This notion of "free will" is actually "desperation". It is not a free choice between alternatives. Consider this: have you spoken with a parent who complained about some random rude person who criticized some minor aspect of their childcare? (Usually a mother, since even rather negligent fathers are heroes.) That can ruin people's days, make them angry and humiliated. Consider being in an institution which is all about this "strict oversight and supervision". And what's the prospect? Many uninterrupted hours a day of even more dignity destruction washing dishes for some strict boss. (Who often stiffs them on their paycheck to boot.) (I'm not saying people have to individually give money to their fellow humans down on their luck. If people prefer some small sustainable amount of activism to fight the societal structures which make people poor, good on them. That's collective action, not atomized individual action; certainly in the business world, people organize into strange sorts of collectives. And activism is generally in their own interests; the prospect of being poor scares people into accepting worse conditions for being cogs in the machine. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-of-workers-is-a-big-factor-in-fed-policy.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-of...)