odds are that as population continue to increase with the supply of land fixed, the "hobos" will have the numbers on their side...
So what you're advocating is the forcible redistribution of wealth by a collective body.
my argument actually is that the collective body forcible redistributing wealth (wealth can only occur with labor employing capital on land) are those that exclude and have a monopoly on the economic rent (landowners) at the expense of the self-ownership rights of those excluded who in paying the economic rent to the landowner collective are in essence being subjected to an illegal tax backed by the enforcement of the state.
to put it in Albert J. Nock's words:
the monopoly of economic rent is made possible when the State grants land-titles to a fraction of the population, thereby giving that fraction devices with which to levy tolls on the fruits of everyone else's labor. Since these tolls are levied in exchange for a "service" (access to valuable land) that said fraction did nothing to provide, the collection of economic rent is literally an entitlement scheme, i.e., a State-sanctioned transfer payment from those who produce to those who do not produce. In his essay, "The God's Lookout," Albert Jay Nock (author of Our Enemy, the State) explains how this particular form of welfare conflicts with the principles of laissez faire capitalism:
"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what state absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.
"But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent, -- thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus." [Emphasis Nock's]
this is why merely reducing the size of government is not enough...in the late 19th century we had virtually everything that most libertarians of today claim they are fighting for -- a tax and regulatory burden much lower than what we have now.
yet despite that fact, there was still an alarming rate of poverty amidst vast concentrations of wealth and privilege and as Nock pointed out, this was due not to natural causes, but to the concentrated ownership of "economic rent."
thus, to secure a truly an equally free and prosperous society, we must recognize and uphold both the exclusive right of each individual to the fruits of his or her labor, and the equal right of all individuals to the use of land as expressed via the direct and equal sharing of economic rent between neighbors in a community.