According to Harper’s Weekly, a Madison Avenue antiques dealer was suing a group of homeless people who had taken up residence outside his business for $1 million.

In the same story author Chantal Clark wrote that officials in an Indiana town found four homeless men’s bodies “stuffed in manholes.”

At what point did helping those in need cease to be a relevant value in today’s society? As is standard procedure, I offer this hypocrisy disclaimer: I am not one of those incredibly charitable people who donate 53 weekends a year to soup kitchens, homeless shelters or helping the needy cross the street. I do, however, support government aid to help the needy, particularly the homeless.

Previously I have written of the tragic irony of Washington D.C. In the capital of the most powerful, prosperous state in the history of the world, homeless people litter the park benches at night. Obviously, the government cannot house, clothe and feed these needy at a middle class standard. Besides being cost-prohibitive, that would be unfair to those who show up to work five or six days a week for the same standard of living.

However, what the entire country must understand is that our government, being a republican (little “R”) democracy (little “D”) has an obligation to every citizen, not just the rich or the poor, the red-staters or the blue, the housed or the house-less.

Democracies such as ours derive their legitimacy to rule from the people, a law the philosophies of Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke, and the ultimate authority always resides with the populace. Unfortunately, in larger societies such as ours the voices of the less powerful become mute with poverty (or Jack Abramoff’s mouth cover) and cannot decry their need. If our government is to be that which Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Hamilton envisioned it has an obligation to help its citizens in need. Americans’ contract with its government is contingent on good use of the ceded power. If the homeless had any means of expressing their opinions, they would likely void their agreement because of negligent governmental policy.

More specifically, the government is obligated to provide some sort of minimum living environment for its people. Wealth, intelligence, and privilege have their advantages in society in terms of advanced health care, nicer residences and increased personal choice but government must provide for the bare necessities of life. The potential for abuse of such governmental gifting is obvious. For those with little aspiration, why bother working at all? I see little reason why those receiving government assistance cannot compensate society for its charity. In exchange for clean, safe housing and sufficient food, the formerly homeless could perform basic yet necessary service functions for their government, more than offsetting their expenses.

More than anything though, American society needs to suspend its fear of the homeless. As a society that prides itself on family values, is there not room in the governmental heart for the needy?