agree that it's a bad thing to empower beneficaries with flexibility to choose how they receive government assistance and how they can spend it in this context, so long as the gov isn't kicking people off.

Since this is all hypotheticals anyway, all I can go off of is how I or people I know that have used government assistance would view such a choice. And it would be overwhelmingly positive. Dare I say life-changing.

For example, my friend would've been able to finish her bachelor's in nursing degree under such an arrangement, rather than drop out at the LPN stage after having her child. She was a new (and single) mom starting over in a new city after leaving her abusive ex and it took her some time to get back on her feet i.e. secure a job, housing, etc. She could only spend her assistance on certain things. But with access to a UBI program like Yang's, guaranteed she would have roomed with a relative/friend for the remaining years of her bachelors and knocked it out. Which would have doubled her current salary. She would've also been able to replace some of the belongings her ex had destroyed (eg. laptop, phone) much quicker, rather than relying on friends and family (although we were happy to help and would do it again).


I do think there's a bit of a forest v. trees issue when it comes to arguing this aspect.

>
>why do they have to make that choice?