Some people have no one to turn to.
As a small congregation, we can't help the entire world. We can't always help everyone who comes asking. But if someone has made an effort to be part of our community, we may go to extraordinary lengths to help them.
People with plenty of material resources only need emotional and spiritual support. But poor and disabled people often need help they simply cannot get without a friendly community. Moving is a good example. A woman with physical and mental disabilities lets someone in our church know she has to move apartments on a certain date. She can't afford to hire movers. But if she could, it is unlikely that she would have mental clarity to carry it off.
What would happen if no one stepped in? Moving day would come and go, landlords would be angry, and our disabled friend might end up in custody, possibly having harmed herself, possibly worse.
How much disruption and expense has been saved for everyone involved, when one troubled person receives adequate help? If we could find a way to get people the help they need, our entire society would benefit - but apparently, no one would "profit". A society that has no way of helping its weakest members under its economic structure, is doomed. Our society cannot sustain an enterprise that doesn't earn over a certain level of profit - regardless of how much the good or service is needed, by people who are willing and able to work. How does that add up to commonwealth, which values creating benefits to people who engage in it? And if our society is not a commonwealth, then why should those who are excluded from its benefits support it or abide by its rules at all?
If it quacks like a duck (etc.), it is probably a duck. If it is doesn't aim to benefit all, it is not a commonwealth.