himespau 

Yeah, there are a lot of things out there that are worthy to achieve instead of money. That's fine. My concern is that there are often limited resources to feed the needy in various places (maybe not everywhere), and sometimes getting food is a zero sum game. It's great if he can go out on this great adventure of self actualization and find himself. But if doing so means someone else doesn't get to eat, that's not cool. Self-actualization is the highest level of Maslow's hierarchy. Doesn't seem fair for him to cause someone to not get to a lower level so he can get to a higher level. If people want to freely give him food and he wants to use warmshowers or whatever to couch surf his way across the country and rely on the kindness of strangers for food that's fine. It's just that something like 15% of kids in this country don't get enough food each day and if he takes away food that should be going to them while he has food available at home, I don't think that's cool. If there isn't food for him at home, that's different, but gaming the system so you can get a vacation is something I have a problem with. I'm not saying he has to take a job and get money, but maybe there's a way he can find himself locally that doesn't require taking resources others need. Volunteering? Trying out new things around home? I don't think soup kitchens should have some sort of "are you really homeless" test, but I think it's the responsibility of us in society not to abuse the safety net put in place for others. This guy's post reminds me of the guy who wanted to ride along on a large group tour, following their routes and camping with them, but not eating their food and didn't think he should have to pay because roads are public and he's not using their food. Technically, that's true (though he may be taking advantage of permissions and camp sites that they did pay for), but it's kind of cheating the system.