It is not even clear that Joseph and Mary accepted emergency charity when they got space in the stable. Given that they were en route to Bethlehem to pay taxes. How ironic is that? They presumably had money to pay for the space in the stable.

Jlc: A fine example- while at that moment of execution, it might seemingly be a potential "loss", yet in the gift of giving was the seed that grew... and helped create a nation of free people, saved many a life, and in the end benefited the innkeeper directly (a now famous inn) and indirectly- with the freedom to operate and prosper as he so chooses.

so see a real live virgin birth would have been worth the loss of a nights revenue. Imagine the advertising value

So let's look at the real problem: government! The Inn was sufficient for its normal patrons. The problems of overcrowding were caused by Caesar Augustus' decree that "the whole world should be taxed" (meaning the Roman world of which Israel at the time was a vassal state).

This is just one more example of government meddling causing problems in the free market. =D

You're compounding several things into one problem. First, the solution chosen by the innkeeper worked for everyone, including Joseph and Mary. Second, the shepherds visited the manger, but the magi visited when Jesus was a toddler, probably about a year old, and by your own admission, Joseph and Mary weren't in the inn at that time. That suggests that Joseph and Mary had to accept some emergency charity for a few days, but were productive enough to make it on their own by the time the magi arrived. This is supported by the fact that Joseph worked as a carpenter as a career, so he wasn't your typical welfare recipient. Being Jewish, I'd have expected a better presentation than this, especially from someone who claims to have read the Christian Bible well enough to be able to connect the dots better than this.

You have just described the supposedly "higher" education system in the US. Based on supposed need, the result is a most expensive "education" system in the world and, at the same time, completely dysfunctional waste of four or five years. But the intentions were good...

With all due respect you need to understand the context and concepts here...
It is March/April (lambing season) in Judea.
Most traveling folks at that point can "camp out" and avoid a need for shelter.
Joseph showed up at the Inn because Mary had "broke water" during the journey and Joseph was needing some privacy to deliver the baby.
The Innkeeper's wife was the person who intervened on their behalf and opened a private place for delivery.
It isn't so bad...a manger is a place for the hay so that the cattle can eat.
It is a soft landing.

It's all perspective. Just like the difference between a reason and an excuse. If I don't do something, I'm giving you my reason, but you are listening to my excuse. Same thing with charity, if you perceive that it's charity, then it is. You can have some very selfish reasons to give "charity" that we haven't thought of. Perhaps the innkeeper knew that after the census, business would be very slow, and he wanted to gain a good reputation. Perhaps he didn't want his paying customers to see them and gave them the barn to keep them out of sight. Either way, the recipient can feel that someone has done something charitable without any charitable intentions, just like they can feel it was not charity because they feel entitled to it.

When it comes right down to it, it all comes down to choices. Charity is choice, forced charity is robbery.

first...poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...
second...if you have perfect knowledge and know the birth of this child will result in Mohammed, Jesus, or Hitler would you be justified in taking a life to save millions of lives down the road???...

I agree with cjf. As the owner of the property, it is the innkeepers call as to what he does with his resources.

I will remind you that charity does not necessarily result in long term financial hardship. Let's replace J&M with 'a tattered commander of troops retreating from the enemy in winter'. The innkeeper lets the officers stay in his inn - for free - and the soldiers are housed in his warm barn. He has just lost money (food; potential other customers). A couple of years later, however, he puts a sign on his inn: "George Washington slept here".

In the long run, he has not lost money.

Jan, knows from experience that "free" sells

First come first served. That rule is often avoided if a tip is involved.
The lefty problem is the "each according to his need" dilemma. If strictly followed puts the less needy in second place compared to the needier. This creates an incentive to be needier or at least to appear to be needier. If you are against that you have no compassion and you are a heartless beast. I know. I have been operating without a heart for many years.

Aren't those called sharks?

I see charity work sort of like a producer, seeing a need and supplying the means for it to be met. And not by just giving a temporary fix, but by finding the root cause of the problem and fulfilling it (ie, finding someone that can't find a job because he/she has no skill and teaching that person a skill, rather than throwing money to that person) I think that Ayn Rand would acknowledge that if someone is truly a producer, he can interweave any charity he CHOOSES into the things he produces, IF he CHOOSES to provide any charity at all.

Simple solution...

The Innkeeper loads all his worldly possessions and cash in a cart, puts a sign on the front door stating "I'm leaving it as I found it...take it...it's yours" and goes Galt.

Easy-peasy

Old Dino has something to say and what Old Dino says is this~
A woman having a baby ain't gonna voluntarily give up her birthing space.
Not for nothing. Not for nobody.
Not the Virgin Mary.
Not Bloody Mary.
Not any Mary in between.
It ain't gonna happen.

It was just humor, and I could go on at length about the value of money in ancient times. (I get awards for that kind of writing.) However, basically, the Roman denarius, Greek drachmon, or half a shekel of Tyre, was about a day's wages. That's sunrise to sunset at a time of need, like harvest. The Athenians paid themselves a drachmon a day to attend the Assembly. (The Spartans called that "legally looting the treasury.") Most cities also paid soldiers in the field -citizens or mercenaries - and rowers on warships (again) the same amount. Soldiers provided their own equipment. Rowers were from the poorest class.

The Last Supper - small loaf of bread; a cup of wine - cost about a sestertius, a Roman coin the diameter of a 50-cent piece, but as thick as a silver dollar.

Absent state-controlled currency, as the innkeeper said, everything spent. Worst case was paying for your money to be changed. Jewish law required shekels in temple tax.

(Heard enough?)

Here in Austin, when HomeAway opened up, they were met by protesters. I kid you not. On a lesser note, when we lived in Ann Arbor, it was common for people to rent their driveways for parking for football games. Again, here in Austin, events are a way of life, but for the big two - South by Southwest and Austin City Limits Live, some entrepreneurial landlords repurpose their rentals into party sites.

But, again, as in my comment to CircuitGuy, I was inspired by the Rand quote juxtaposed to the familiar story. Who should give up a room? And when would Mary volunteer to give up her own for someone needier?

Thanks for the insights. Another alternative would have been for people to sublease their own houses or take in boarders. Many alternative tellings of this myth are possible, but we only get the one version without inquiry or comment.

Mostly, I was just inspired by the Ayn Rand quote to look at it differently.