"Your argument is "the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens.", No, it isn't. My argument is that it is not morally wrong for the go

"Your argument is "the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens.", No, it isn'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's not any less wrong than having everyone pay taxes that fund schools, roads, and hospitals they don'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's a form of social welfare. And how is BIG not a mutually agreed to transaction? If you don't want the money, I'm sure you can find a way to send it back. Stipulate it yourself if you think it should be stipulated. "THUS we should be able to have stipulations on these new services" We can have stipulations. There's nothing preventing that. We just don't want them, as that's the whole point of basic income. You're trying to claim we can't not have them, which is absurd. And stop overusing the word 'obvious.'