By bailing them out.
And no element of mathematics, economics or psychology could dispute that. Really, try to find something. This is game theory (zero-sum, there are winners with resources and losers without) and that topic is a bastard that hangs you by your Golden Rule appeals. Point to one successful surviving nation that follows it. One. Contrary to Western marketing, Buddhists are vicious warriors. These people can set themselves on fire.
Cost/benefit assessments take into account the presence of safety nets, the fail-safes, the conditionals and Plan Bs. Bad people knowingly harm others to help themselves (drains, parasites, toxic scum). Churches didn’t just provide charity, alms, they provided selective charity by distinguishing between the deserving poor (they got into that mess by choice) and undeserving poor (victim of circumstance). It was “Go forth and sin no more”, a single chance, not “Go forth and try not to fuck up again, even though I’m such a doormat I’ll bail you out”. Turning the other cheek had sweet FA to do with cash. And this single option of salvation was coming from JESUS. If you think you’re more pious and a better Christian (signalling!) than Jesus of Nazareth himself, nobody can talk sense into you.
For the math/economics, here’s the ever-radiant;
“Understand that bar charities for cancer, disease, etc., the vast majority of charity is simply bailing out stupid, irresponsible people from their stupid, irresponsible decisions.”
This all stems from guilt.
Anyone trying to guilt you into believing you owe them for being born is psycho.
You can’t be a victim of your own choices. It’s impossible.
Charity should be a private choice. For classy people, we’ve always kept it anonymous (the Bible passage about trumpets springs to mind). I know I’m not the only person raised with this solid advice and I actually try to use proxies to help others, intermediaries in-person. This has the additional benefit of preventing the recipient from seeking you out if they screw up again. It’s funny how nobody on the Left ever mentions consent in those discussions on charity work, but they accept theft is illegal…
UPDATE: There are opposing definitions of deserving poor vs. undeserving.
But logically the grammar of the definition I gave [person, poor, manner, deserving of] and read historically makes more sense.
We did have Elizabethan and Victorian laws that made the distinction.