A joke.
< Yeah, dude, our trust system is totally fucked!
Nobody sane is going to give you credit for having the opportunity to steal and not stealing.
That is LITERALLY the point of the trust system. Some one is entrusted with funds, they have the opportunity to steal, they don't and then fulfill their obligation, thus proving them trustworthy.
Wrong. Nobody in their right mind would actively entrust him with a million dollars, he just happened to end up in that situation due to many externalities. Doing good can be proof of good, not doing bad is not proof of good.
but (presumably) he
was entrusted with those funds, and he proceeded to act honorably. that seems fundamentally
good, right? why would it matter what externalities led to the situation?
if not stealing from others despite the opportunity =/= trustworthy, what would you consider to be the basis of trustworthiness? what metrics do you use?