> Sam literally did the opposite of contribute to the experiment. There is nothing he could have done which would be more disruptive.
>
> The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive.
I took from this that a system like this cannot survive, because there will always be actors trying to game it.
I think this actually parallels how many entitlement programs work: they are set up for truly altruistic reasons, but bad actors enter the program and make it difficult for the program to remain sustainable. A subset of people will always manipulate a system where they can get something for nothing.
If someone had not done it loudly and publicly, someone would have done it quietly and probably larger.
I mean, come on, what's the alternative? "There exist no exploitative jerks in the world"? We already know that's not true, just to cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath as one (very large) example. Maybe Jonathon has learned some stuff from his experiment, it went exactly as I expected.
It works for a while, because at first people make grand gestures to show how cool they are to each other, and they outnumber the abusers, but as the fame wears off, so too does the benefits of making the grand gesture, whereas the benefits of sponging never go away. It doesn't mean life is hopeless nor does it mean the bad will always outweigh the good in the world, it just means you need some more structure to things before you can expect net positive outcomes, and that structure will take some experience, and reflections and refinements based on that experience, to best manifest.
I think this actually parallels how many entitlement programs work: they are set up for truly altruistic reasons, but bad actors enter the program and make it difficult for the program to remain sustainable. A subset of people will always manipulate a system where they can get something for nothing.