When a person is dispossessed of his land, there is a reaction and you have to deal with the reaction properly. You just can't deal with the reaction by giving him money.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Wherefore when a man giveth out his money upon condition that be may not demand it back until a certain time to come, he certainly may take a compensation for this inconvenience which he admits against himself.
It is not from your own goods that you give to the beggar; it is a portion of his own that you are restoring to him. The Earth belongs to all. So you are paying back a debt and think you are making a gift to which you are not bound.
Giving a poor person money keeps them poor.
Borrow trouble for yourself, if that's your nature, but don't lend it to your neighbours.
Historically, over the last two or three hundred years, the relationship that we've had with money as a society - having money, talking about money - has been a little bit of a shameful thing. Splashing money about is clearly wrong, but there's nothing wrong about giving it back.
When there wasn't any money involved, for all intents and purposes, nobody gave a damn. But now the land, supposedly worthless, is seen for what it really is: an incredibly valuable asset.
If I steal money from any person, there may be no harm done from the mere transfer of possession; he may not feel the loss, or it may prevent him from using the money badly. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself dishonest.
Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help.
It is better to give then to lend, and it costs about the same.
Asking people for money is giving them the opportunity to put their resources at the disposal of the Kingdom.