to fish or not to fish

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

I don't think solving the deprivation of basic needs without addressing the root causes is a meaningful solution-not to say that a meal or cup of coffee today has no merit.  But it's very easy for the well to do (of which most of us are a part by the definition I am using here) to buy that meal in lieu of engaging in a meaningful way with someone who needs something more from us than a few bucks.  Sort of the give a man a fish vs. teach him how to fish idea.  In addition it allows a paternalistic approach to the poor/disadvantaged.  This serves to support the sense of moral contribution/superiority in us, tends to support the idea that we know better than the other what is good for them, and allows us to avoid giving that street person a full solution.  Because to do so would mean giving up some of our own power.  

Practically speaking, I believe the solution requires that the homeless, poor, and otherwise disadvantaged must fully participate in the political process to cut the paternalistic ties.  Bridging all socio-economic, political and religious boundaries and bringing all to the table seems to be the closest we can come to Rawl’s veil of ignorance.

What would we have done to us or for us, were we that outcast?