A meme posted to social media insisted, “In the U.S., vacant houses outnumber homeless people.”
And the point is?
Shouldn’t it also be asked why is the person homeless?
The way in which this statement is formulated raises a number of additional observations.
Steps can be taken to find shelter for the destitute.
However, it does not logically follow that these individuals deserve a home given to them outright without having to earn one.
A significant number of the homeless can’t seem to master the basics of bodily hygiene.
What makes you think they can handle the complexities of home upkeep?
There is also the issue of definitions. Just because a house is vacant, that does not mean that the house is not owned.
If the owners of such domiciles want to make it part of their life’s vocation to shelter the indigent, that is commendable.
However, we must be circumspect of social engineers compelling to surrender that which fanatical redistributors consider excess.
For example, if non-resident owners are forced to quarter vagrants against their will (a violation of the spirit of the Third Amendment), when those unable to handle the stresses of maintaining a home either actively or passively allow entropy to overtake a given structure, what party will step forward to rectify this damage.
Idealists might sneer down their noses at reducing this moral dilemma to matters of economics and base legalities.
However, you can’t really live inside a good intention and expect it to keep the wind or rain out, can you?
by Frederick Meekins
No comments:
Post a Comment