In addition to what you have said here, you cannot save up your time.  It's questionable if you can save up your pats on the back (which you might just as well give away very liberally, and your reward could be as simple as the meaning or help it created for someone else).  Perhaps you can save your attention, but usually that is going to be between you and your work and internet/media habits more than human interaction habits.  

There could be some extreme cases where someone is hogging an undue level of time and attention (and at that point, you need to set boundaries as the issue likely lies within you as much as your friend).  Which segues into, I think the whole point OP is missing, "It takes two to tango."  There's something complex in the interaction between two people.  If it was "worthwhile" or "you got something out of it" it is often due to the influence of your own actions, words, reality field as much as anything they willfully "did" or "did not do."  And if it seemed like a waste of time, well, at least 50% of that interaction was you!

Your statement "The things that are given in a friendship are things that when you give them, you still have them. This is unlike buying a loaf of bread, where I am little concerned to support the baker, nor he me." is correct.  To reach a little further into it, likely looking at things transactionally will skew human interactions in a specific direction, self-selecting for other people and interactions of a certain type.  Strangely, for the person who believes in transactional human interactions, I suspect due to that skewing, looking back it will appear that their perspective was "correct."  Transactionalism being a kind of self-reinforcing or even self-feeding pattern.

I think this might be akin to the conversational results that would be achieved in social interactions between a habit of steelmanning vs strawmanning.  In steelmanning, you would understand things better, but also in my experience you can draw out the best of the other person's thinking, intentions, etc.  The entire interaction typically changes.  Especially if you are talking to someone from an otherwise embattled group.  Often they drop the whole thing after awhile and you're talking to another human with about the same needs, wants, and motives as any other decent person, and there's something to connect to.

As you said, paying of attention and pats on the back in a transactional way seems dysfunctional.  But it's also selective for partners who themselves are either very transactive or very giving.  It's likely someone could leave ten years of doing it that way thinking they were "right."  And if all you care about is one level of tangible results, it might be "an effective strategy."  It's only a partial analogy, but just like the ideologue who goes around looking for every hole and inconsistency in dissenting views (the highbrow version of strawmanning) will have been "right" about all those idiots out there.

Does this vary on market at large scale as it does for medium scale?  USA vs Asia, for example was 2-3x difference in price in concrete 10 years ago.

Wouldn't it be easier to use a platform anchored in the ocean somewhere?  If there's some law that it technically needs to have "land" you could dredge some sand like the Chinese did in their reclamation projects.  Have a carrier-sized piece of land (and turn that into your central park) and build everything else on elevated platforms.

Yes you have to spend a lot to maintain that structure and surface, but I am still not convinced the ice structures require any less work to maintain.

Getting land somewhere else is still probably easier and cheaper.  Have you looked into Svalbard?  Are there any places that have notoriously sleepy governments and you could just make a compound there and do your experimental society?  This ice structure thing seems pretty capital intensive, which makes me think buying land is still a better bang-for-the-buck.

"You didn't commit extra crimes, but it requires more resources to protect you from crimes. (And again, since you are a single person, the extra resources get lost in the noise. But if many people did this, there would be more crime.)"

Is me creating an opportunity for someone to commit a crime constitute my doing something bad to the commons or is it on the actual criminals?  It seems you are quite literally blaming (potential) victims for their drag on society.  Doesn't 100% of the responsibility for that, and whatever costs are incurred lie with those who would do the crimes?

The rest of it, about shoplifting, seems hard to connect, as no one is advocating doing something illegal.  I think what I said above about creating slack is less speculative than you are making it out to be (especially given many of the real conditions, as I pointed out above).

To try and do justice to the rest of your post...  are you saying that people would just see someone riding around the island, camping outside as a public nuisance, basically, and dislike it, so therefore it shouldn't be done?

(A)  What would balance the "dislike" concern?  I give you credit that you do not believe we should infinitely defer to the possibility that society would find a set of actions distasteful.  I guess it is correct that a few frowns if someone found out I was sleeping in a Hammock in the woods might matter, though we don't also know who would think it was cool.  FWIW, old people walking on the mountain trails some mornings who saw me camping out usually smiled and said "Oh, ni li hai!" ("You are very capable" which is normally a compliment).  So how much deference do we owe to what amounts to speculations of distaste?

(B)  A lot of the objection also seems to revolve around speculation that "if more people did this, a cascade of bad outcomes would happen."  I think this is resolvable to (1) apparently there is systemic equilibrium in that most other people empirically do not choose to do this (and those who have no choice are a separate problem where everything we are saying is basically moot, the discussion would be a completely different one) and (2) your speculations that outcomes should be bad still seems to have at most equal footing to my speculations that it should be good or neutral.  

So what level of deference do we owe to speculations of bad outcomes in the contra-factual case if my behavior somehow caught on with more people and they did what I am doing?

(C)  Normal cases of destroying the commons usually require that the equilibrium of people choosing to do something tends towards overwhelming the common resource.  In the USA, you see signs and ordinances trying to stop people from sleeping outside, so that equilibrium is currently out of balance (and most of those people do not have a choice).  Without evidence, is there even any reason for me not to assume the system in Taiwan is currently in a functional and fine equilibrium at whatever number of people do what I was doing?

(TL;DR:  D)  I still think there may be something inside what you are saying that "Systems are designed on a set of assumptions, and this constitutes the social contract.  Violating those assumptions always produces an unexpected systemic draw."  As a systems engineer, I find this line of thinking intriguing.  What I would guess is actually happening is there are many different forms of such draws.  Most look different to mine, and look different to each other, but indeed, each stepping out of bounds of systemic assumptions and legibility does create a draw on the system.  I am not quite sure how to address this, as it is extremely difficult to know if and what damage is being done, as it all amounts to noise.  

It seems like there is some argument to be made that we should try to operate within all established social systems.  However, I don't think it's infinitely true.  The question then, like all my other points above, how much?  If I guess I am contributing more than I am taking by my level of noise then is this okay?  Moreover, am I even being accurate in understanding my own level of systemic draining noise?  How much can I actually go around knowing if a particular action is producing a drain at all (I'm still not convinced being voluntarily unhoused did that in Taiwan)?  Should I run it like GARP accounting standards where I always rule against myself, and if there is any question I am creating noise which increases systemic burdens, I should not do the action?

Honestly, maybe as a default that is okay.  However, at some point, if I did it all the time, then the lack of slack may create enough drains on the user that their reduced mental health or capacity ends up creating a bigger drain.  In other words, I am willing to take that position and I think you are correct about it if that's the crux of your argument -- but I think that would need to be held very loosely, otherwise we would do more damage handcuffing ourselves than the system noise of our lives.

"Violent crimes of desperation increase because of greater wealth disparity" seems sensible.  The greater wealth disparity being the cause of the desperation that instigates the crimes.  The OP here is about vast wealth disparity causing social deviance, in some sense.

However, "In a situation where wealth is more equitably distributed, there are fewer crimes of desperation" seems like they could both be coming from the same font of "Our society is good and cares about its people and takes good care of them."  The OP of this thread is also about this.

"Violent crime is causing greater wealth disparity" makes sense only in places where warlords, drug kingpins, or oligarchic criminals are building empires.

I think East Asian islands have a combination of 1 and 2.  In Taiwan, the 30-40 year boom saw most people getting a piece of the pie.  Few are desperate enough to resort to violent crimes.  Does this seem reasonable?  Perhaps especially compared to places like the USA or increasingly Europe where you have a sizable portion of people who do not get their fair share of the pie in exchange for their life's time, with resulting despair, desperation, and etc...

You still aren't telling me why I should assume I am contributing to bad outcomes instead of good ones or neutral ones without actual any actual crime or damage being done.  I'm not building anything resembling a shoplifting ring here.

Let me try to think some of this through that you might be getting at.  One of the things you mention is my depending on the lower crime rates.  This is the single thing that keeps me from doing the exact same thing in the USA.  In fact I/other people do the same thing in the USA sometimes, such as camping on national parklands, or even sleeping at a rest stop, even frequenting the same stop multiple times when it seems clearly safe.

So then the first question is, "Did I personally contribute to an increased crime rate or decreased safety on the island?"  I think the answer is obviously no, but I would be interested to hear if I am overlooking something.

The second question would be, "What mass of people, if doing the same thing, would increase the crime rate?"  This is harder to get into, and requires some speculation.  

First of all, Taiwan does not allow any private handgun ownership, and very little private gun ownership in any form.  Secondly, I think East Asian culture is less prone to interpersonal violence.  The Chinese cities, even where there is increased poverty, don't pose the same kind of threat as most urban areas in the USA.  In Taiwan, a random mugging or victimization is rare.  In Japan it's close to non-existant.  There is still Domestic violence, but nothing that a vagabond who isn't partnered to a violent person need worry about.  I think the lack of crime is largely baked into the culture, and non-destitute, non-criminal unhoused are highly unlikely to really move any needles on this.

But let's say that a bunch of people decided to do what I did.  I think one group might be the sort of miscreants who generally stay up using alcohol and stimulants and playing video games in internet bars.  A few have made international news for dying playing video games (and no one noticed).

So, you take that demographic, and create a culture of groups on scooters riding around and camping in the mountains and sometimes in the cities.  I could see that you would basically have a lot of kids sitting around drinking, surely trashing up the places where they camped.  Probably communities would ask police to crack down on them.  That might legitimately trash the commons.  But isn't the problem there that they are drinking, maybe causing trouble, and littering?  If you removed those issues, would there be any problem with it?

Regarding "Silicon Valley," yes, I think if a group of non-criminal, non-littering youth were to emerge that decided to be localized digital nomads instead of "lying flat" it could be a major force, creating a lot of new outputs.  Not "silicon valley" on the scale of USA, (which required a time, place, and etc) but yes, potentially a highly innovative and important culture that could have a major impact.  In order to create an innovative culture, at scale or even personally, a primary requirement is systemic slack.  Inflation, housing costs, and red queen races of education are eating slack everywhere.  Maybe spreading just the idea that people don't have to work all the time would have a positive impact on the culture.  People need to breathe to create.  It evidently needs to be easier to breathe than it is in most places.

Remember, we are talking about a country and an area that is headed rapidly to demographic collapse, where the young are already opting out in dysfunctional ways because the existing society is systemically failing them (as in the culture of just hanging out all the time in internet cafes, sometimes literally unto death).  The "Lying flat" culture started in Japan and China and has spread to Taiwan as well (and the USA, for that matter).  Camping out by hot springs and oceans and working while living in a hammock in the hills above one's town hardly seems like a dangerous abuse of the commons, given the actual contexts of the world.

But perhaps you believe we should not opt out of what we assume the system assumes.  I could see a sort of "Schelling Fence" argument for that, but there should also be some limitation.  If I am sure I am doing nothing criminal nor damaging to the environment, nor apparently reducing the commons of the land anymore than I did of the sea, then is there still a good reason I should not cross the fence? 

I can also see some point where a critical mass of unhoused might cause social problems.  On the other hand, normally a critical mass of unhoused is also destitute, which causes its own set of problems.  I would not know how to unwind those two factors.  I still think a tent city for the non-destitute would be great, but perhaps this would strain the social system of rents and employment by eliminating legibility and dependence on employers and landlords?  Some might think that is a good thing, but on the other hand, let's just say it contributes to "market volatility," so even if the change might be net good, managing the interim could be hard.  

But I am reaching here, circling back and forth on what I already thought about the matter.  I feel like there must be something specific in your mind or intuition that led you to think I was trashing the commons, and I think making it lucid should be very valuable.  Even if I indeed go back to Taiwan and camp (urban and non) again, it might help me ameliorate any actual degrading of the commons, which I am motivated to do as I love my second country there.

Thank you for the ongoing conversation.  I do appreciate this.

"If by "drain" you mean "used far more than your fair share" everything you did that wouldn't be done so often by someone with a home was a drain."

Why should we assume "cost" by default when not conforming to systemic expectations?  And why should we assume others doing it should have a bad result?

I think that would only be a drain if someone else's use was diminished afterwards.  You never mention, for example, my days spent snorkeling in Hualien.  Hours and hours and hours for several weeks with my head in the water, looking at starfish and such.  This was arguably "more than my fair share" but I did not diminish the resource for anyone else who wants to use it.  And this is also something that might not be done by someone who is paying for a home.  I think it's not instinctively mentioned in the conversation because we both know I could do this essentially infinitely and not diminish anyone else's use of that commons.

Likewise, if I leave everything in the condition I found it, am not breaking laws, and paying for food, gas, taxes, and whatever else I need or want, then what is our definition of "drain?" or even "fair share?"  Fair share is a more complicated term because some who have houses got them free, perhaps through inheritance, along with money, or even regular middle class people might be using more of the countryside in a destructive way in their time off than I am (such as the trashed up barbeque sites you see along many rivers in Taiwan).

To delve into this a bit more, you may be effectively saying that we should look at any existing system, and regardless of our views on it, we owe it an attempt to conform to what we assume it assumes.  It seems that could fail on multiple vectors, no?

We need something clearer than just "I think this society expects x, and so I assume that doing other than x is destroying the commons."

To think of it another way, if a culture of (lawful and clean) vagabonds were to evolve in Taiwan, for all we know it might create a new culture of innovation, versus the "lie flat" culture that some of Asia is falling prey to.  Taiwanese youths with newfound time and freedom, at least some of them, might become a creative force.  It could birth a silicon valley, or at the very least create a hopefulness of some systemic slack that many find lacking, which has serious social costs in that country right now.  Or, given a feeling of less pressure to take and spend money, might have more children, helping the country's coming demographic collapse.  Or, maybe a lot of biking/camping tourists will go to the Island and bring in money that way through use of the 70% which is mountainous and undeveloped land.  Any of these are possible, so why should we assume bad outcomes?

If society evolved to 10% unhoused but working, healthy, and non criminal, I strongly suspect systems could be adapted. Non-destitute tent cities could likely be supported as easily as a large fairgrounds.

It’s possible then that the balance of outliers such as me are because most people just want to be housed? So the balance of light amenities for the unhoused in Taiwan is at equilibrium (and needs more amenities in the USA, probably). NB that surely I am not the first or only person in TW to do this. The countryside night-market culture seems possibly to involve healthy non criminal transient merchants for example. At any rate, implicitly the system is designed for the number of people doing this. No?

Back to my question above, what actual drain did I pose on society? If I could know what those are, I could mitigate them. I will likely be back in Taiwan to continue my permanent residency visa in 2025. I will be bringing in outside money and again probably living out of a bike or a motorcycle. Other than keeping things clean and obeying laws, what should I do to make sure I haven’t done harm?

This is an interesting point, and I like the perspective.  The main ingredients needed for my adventures were (1) lack of crime and (2) spaces, such as clean restrooms, forests, and some of the gazebos such as along the road in He Huan Mountain.  The hot springs at Hell Valley, I paid for, and of course I paid for food and gas and such.

I think (1) is common to most of Asia, and I have had several friends who did similar things in China, which is a bit poorer than Taiwan.  China is interesting in that almost every American female who is there for awhile will eventually comment, "This is amazing, I can walk around at 3AM in a big city and know I won't be assaulted."  Used to be that way in South India, to a lesser extent, where I did a version of this for about six months, actually eating for free in many cases (such as the Ashram's giveaway food in Thiruvannamalai) and people have been doing for centuries.  I would not recommend it now, but that's due to politics.  And some people do have guns in India.  There are stray dogs, too.  And the wealth distribution wasn't so good there.  Just after I left, the "eve teasing" thing started, then a lot more issues showed up.

India is not nearly as safe as Taiwan (but still was far safer than the USA, where I booked a motel six just last weekend and had to simply vacate due to horribly unsafe conditions, a lock not functioning correctly.  It was the kind of hotel with graffitti on the inside walls and young males everywhere outside late drinking and yelling (central Savannah Motel 6, should not be available to rent online, frankly).  America is pretty special awful in that regard.  But I haven't been to India since 2015, and my friends on the ground say not to go now.

(2) is less clear and you could be right.  One point is that I don't think I left the public tourism bathrooms worse than I found them.  In that case, what is the cost to society?

(3) There is the public healthcare system.  However, I did work there on and off and paid taxes, ran a business.  Additionally, even if unemployed, I had to pay a premium to use the public healthcare system ($70 a month at that time).  Prior to ever having public health insurance, I once fell off a bike and had to go to the ER.  Had cat scan, stitches, medicine, etc.  About $200.  So, I could just pay out of pocket there and I think pay less than in the USA with insurance in many cases.  And I am guessing healthcare costs are probably higher for non-homeless drinkers and drug users than unhoused abstainers spending long days snorkeling in Hualien?  Maybe this is a gray area.

A question is, am I damaging the commons in ways beyond these kinds of points?  Can you be specific?  I am trying to think through this and figure out what I would need to do to mitigate damage to the commons as I will be returning to Taiwan to extend my permanent residency, likely for most of next year.

Lower wealth disparity also results in lower crime, particularly lower violent crimes.  Taiwan generally has a fairly "sleepy" government and penal system.  And for many types of crimes, you can buy your sentence off for the equivalent of about $30 a day (1000 NTD).  Not a lot of private gun ownership (non-zero, as aboriginals can hunt, and there are (very very few) skeet ranges, but even the president's secret service got into trouble for having a handgun in an unauthorized way).  I've found very stressed and deformed rimfire cartridges out in the woods, apparently from homemade hunting rifles.  That's about it.

The wealth distribution in Taiwan has been great though.  Of course, Forumosa Plastics (Wang family), TSMC, Asus, and a few other giants have made bank, but what you find is a vast quantity of people got their "fair share" there.  Education rates are high (According to Farid Zakharia, in our Legislative Yuan, nearly everyone has Masters or PhD degrees, highest education in any legislative body on the planet.  I'll also point to a decent gender split, not quite 50%).  First Asian country to legalize gay marriage, and Taipei has been having a lot of any-gender restrooms since 10 years or more ago.

So, it's basically a liberal society, educated to within an inch of their lives, with good wealth distribution and zero whatsoever personal handgun ownership (outside of mobsters, probably).  If you get arrested for something like Pot, you can probably spend a few thousand bucks and not serve time, though if you're a foreigner, you might need to leave the country.  Enforcement of laws out in the country is....  like Mayberry.  The cops will chat with you and explain they don't want to clean your brain off the sidewalk if you're doing something stupid while drunk.  Drunk driving is penalized very very heavily, however, as it should be.

On the bad side, people do get away with domestic violence as the law is such (according to a social worker friend of mine), that the police nearly have to witness the crime themselves for you to get into trouble.  If you get into a fight with someone, that's kind of on you and them and the police may not want to be involved in any way (some of my drunken foreigner buddies have been in this situation -- it's good, bad.  The legislative Yuan full of smart people also paradoxically sometimes comes to fistfights).  If someone hits you with a car (happened to me), probably you won't get much, if any compensation.  Some situations people drive very recklessly.  Be careful crossing the street in Taichung or driving on Hehuan mountain road.  People need to show off that they "know the road" by passing on a blind mountain curve, likely while chewing binland and drinking Whisbey (sic, it's an energy drink).  Insurance payouts are very low.  But then again, so are medical costs, even if you pay out of pocket without the social health system.

People also do all kinds of shady things with food, engine repairs, and other stuff.  There's a lot of "old Asia" mentality in there or Cha bu duo jiou hao le, which translates to "Don't bother doing more than an approximate job with this."  You can get something like a shady brake job on a motorcycle if you're not careful.  And food quality violations are exposed all the time.  People also abuse their Philippine or Southeast Asian household helpers, au pairs, and day laborers.  Animal rights are nearly non-existent except for specific cases.

Like every place, there are contradictions.  This is Earth and we have humans here.  But in some ways, it is the balanced Libertarian Socialist Paradise we always dreamed America could be.  Taxes 6% or 20%, and one of the best Healthcare systems on the planet (at about half the GDP rate of USA).  Before implementing their socialized medicine system, they did an extensive 5+ year study on impact, usage patterns, etc, and just implemented a good program (which a legislature full of graduate-educated people passed after analysis, probably without fistfights).

Almost every Taiwanese will point out that cities in the USA are far more boring than cities in Taiwan (IMO, the negative comparison is due largely to the USA not at all doing well with 3rd spaces, and also USA sucks if you do not want to drive and cannot afford to just piss away money anytime you want recreation -- maybe you just Netflix and chill, which is a lot less fun than using an award-winning public transportation system to visit a beach all day and a famous nightmarket, then home on a Saturday and you may have spent $5-$20).

Of course, with degrees in Sociology and Systems engineering, I would quickly point out it's a lot more than an order of magnitude easier to administrate a landmass the size of Virginia with < 10% the population of the USA.  Especially after a 30 year economic boom where most people got some piece of the pie.

Epistemic Status:  I've left the safety of narrative reporting and its attendant subjective accuracy, and gotten into a lot of mixed editorial opinions and experiences.  Take it all for what it's worth.  I could be factually wrong about almost any of this, due to bad memory, bad information, or things having changed.  If you'd prefer to focus on a topic and dig, I am in.  If you want to see and experience Taiwan, have some sort of adventure in the lands of snakes and butterflies and mountain rivers and secret shrines, and you're the kind of person I would enjoy hanging out with, I might even be in.