<i>&quot;Your argument is &quot;the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens.&quot;,</i><p>No, it isn&#x27;t. My argument is that it is not morally wrong for the government to give money to its citizens without stipulating its use. At least it&#x27;s not any less wrong than having everyone pay taxes that fund schools, roads, and hospitals they don&#x27;t use. (Things which, if you objected to them, you could negate most of the other things we have a government for.) Basic income is not some petty luxury bonus, it&#x27;s a form of social welfare.<p>And how is BIG not a mutually agreed to transaction? If you don&#x27;t want the money, I&#x27;m sure you can find a way to send it back. Stipulate it yourself if you think it should be stipulated.<p><i>&quot;THUS we should be able to have stipulations on these new services&quot;</i><p>We <i>can</i> have stipulations. There&#x27;s nothing preventing that. We just don&#x27;t want them, as that&#x27;s the whole point of basic income. You&#x27;re trying to claim we can&#x27;t <i>not</i> have them, which is absurd.<p>And stop overusing the word &#x27;obvious.&#x27;