I agree with you. Let me clarify: in your example we can see three possible branches. 1) nobody does anything, we all gain 0. 2) we profit from the bums, the bu

I agree with you. Let me clarify: in your example we can see three possible branches. 1) nobody does anything, we all gain 0. 2) we profit from the bums, the bums gain 1 and we gain 100. 3) we actually do something for the bums, here the payoff is difficult to calculate but it can be either we gain 0 and the bums gain 10, or we gain 1 and the bums 10, something like that. Where's the optimal solution? Given all members of society play, as we can in fact see in society's outcome, we have all three behaviours in some proportions which a study should see if they're a Nash equilibrium or not. Anyway, what should "a" person do? Very difficult to say. My point is: given the current situation, from "a" bum's point of view, that 1 gained is better than 0, from our point of view that 100 is better than 0 and 1 we'd got helping all the bums, and if we actually helped them, it would be better for all the bums, worse for us (maybe. As I said it's hard to define the payoff here. A bumless society, in my mind, is better for everyone. As per the Nash equilibrium, payoffs are determined by individuals values, nowadays very few believe the poor should be helped consistently, many people instead believing the american dream). So this is the end. I still think a little help with a few profiting from bums is better than no help at all. Is it optimal? Probably not.