The proper analogy would be universal food stamps, rather than need-based, where everyone would begin to rely on the government for food.
If that's the case, then I would personally feel the same way!
If that's the case, then I would personally feel the same way!
Not to make any argument for the feasibility of the idea, of course.
If people truly need to rely on the government for food, it would be absurdly inhumane of a society to let them starve.
Simultaneously, promoting reliance on the government and attempting to make that reliance universal has the potential to take away our freedoms.
Food stamps is an acceptable principle to Americans because it's meant to be temporary and need-based, and if you remove those two characteristics, it isn't just a reductio ad absurdum argument of taking the same concept further; it's entirely different.