#Capitalism

I am a huge supporter of food banks (I agree with the left-wing that in the ideal endgame they aren't needed but I am a fan of them for now in all societies that need them) and am curious about the core opposing stance that right-wingers have to everything from welfare through to charities like food banks.

If somebody is so poor they can't eat, they can't have the energy to do a good job at work, decreasing their productivity towards the nation's economy.

This means even a sheer sociopath should not mind people sparing some food and sanitary products to food-bank style charities to help out those with their backs against the wall, in particular in these times where even a commute can wreck their wealth.

This 'they are lazy' concept is bullshit. The vast majority of the severely poor are not lazy, they are perhaps ill-informed on money management that are now doomed due to that but they need help at times to even cope and have breathing room to feed themselves and/or families.

I ask to you, in your ideal solution to poverty without moving towards social democratic benefits, welfare etc how does the society eliminate brutally severe poverty where going severely hungry and without basic sanitary products is necessary for the poor to be able to afford their bills?

Food banks are supposed to cover when the welfare system is falling short on certain families, this question is about both and why the right-wing oppose them.

I do not support a privatized system, but more privatization is popular amongst academics, so I would probably support that.