> If you can pay your own way, but choose to instead let others pay for you, you're just sponging off people.

I was particularly perturbed at the mention of someone emptying their bank account to help this guy, who has more money than the person emptying their account. I'm no ethics expert, but there is an idea that the unbounded acceptance of generosity becomes a form of exploitation, which I agree with.

I say it depends how he communicated it. If the other persons assumed he did not have money at all (and he was not clear about it) it is close to fraud - otherwise it is an awesome exercise in humbleness and expanding ones mind about the illusion of money. Not being dependent on it.

I used to hitchhike with a very low budget, but liked my independence and feel not comfortable to be dependant on other people, if there was no one in time, I took a bus. (If there was one)

But buddies I travelled with also took the no money approach serious (despite also having a bank account somewhere). Partly ideological, partly spiritual motivations. Not being dependant on money. It is freeing.

I think if he is willing to be generous in other times and places as well, it can be a good learning experience.

I know this is also how Jesus lives in the Gospels, and has his disciples do so at times as well.

Of course he paid his way by healing the sick and raising the dead!

And telling really good stories.

I did some bike touring for a few days at a time, and lived out of monthly Airbnbs for years. I was helped out several times, but my objective was to only accept when I was in a pinch. It's when you're relying on other people as a routine that it flips some circuit and I question it (the difference between a friend staying over and moving in, Airbnb and Couchsurfing). So the daily hitchhiking, even though he likely needed to save money, got to me a bit more than the other stories.

An interesting question would be - have I helped people more well-off than me? and how did I think about it?

I think there is no reason for him to write this article for free, or any of his articles, but I am glad he did us the kindness.

(I did like amish hackers https://kk.org/thetechnium/amish-hackers-a/ )

I think it's a balance. In some cases, the act of giving means much more to the giver than to the receiver, especially when they want to be a part of something larger than themselves.

This is part of the issue I have with the original article.

When these kinds of "unique" people are rare, that's ... sorta okay. Once you get too many of them, it's no longer interesting and becomes an active hazard.

I have a further problem because it seems like the author has no plans for the reverse when it is supposed to be his turn to be on the giving side rather than the receiving.

Maybe the point was the connectedness? Spend £100 with no actual interactions, because literally everything is transactional, or "free ride" of of the very human need to connect socially with others?

I think our future needs more of the latter and less of the former.