You, dear lady, have no obligation to feed the poor, any more than a duty to feed the fish in the sea.
You, free son of individualism, are unbounded and unaccountable. Care for others because they are sick, or impaired is, as you wish.
Foster no expectation of aid. If some driver knocks over a child on a roadway, you may without compunction, carefully manoeuvre around the heaving, mangled body and continue on your journey. Strictly as written, nothing in the above is illegal.
As to chronic, generational poverty, you didn’t create it and it’s not your business fixing. Sure, there are bleeding heart, rich people who would gladly help. The problem is, they have never seen the poor and don’t know they are there. A few might have heard of them and would readily help, if only they knew where to find them.
How could they have in mind images of the working poor, the homeless-working poor or the abandoned, sick, addicted, aged poor, who chose to occupy spaces that highways loop away from?
The trouble with the indolent poor, is not only their choice and unwillingness to help themselves, but that they keep hiding from the willing wealthy. Too spiteful to make themselves visible to the charitable rich, who are often burdened by worry over what to do with leftover food after their guests, their designer cats and pedigree dogs have ate.
From the perspective of the rich, it’s the poor’s duty to announce where they can be found by day, or in dead of night. The well-to-do say the needy owes them that, but withhold the information just to make them –the noblesse oblige –look bad.
If one of means accidentally stumbles on the poor, after the startle, swift comes rationality and stark wisdom, that is to say, the shocking discovery that the poor outnumber the very rich 10,000 to 1. Unlike us, he thinks, that mass of ambulatory poor, knows precisely where we live –and they’re hungry. Very hungry and angry!