The 'liberty vs efficiency' tradeoff holds here, too.
You can take the 'state-socialist' / 'nanny-state' approach of supplying your welfare in kind (or in restricted currencies like food stamps), which keep people from making poor purchasing decisions and requiring additional welfare payments / emergency treatment to make up for them.
Or you can take the 'libertarian' approach of supplying enough money that they _could_ survive on it if they made vaguely sensible decisions, and letting them starve / suffer from their illnesses if they don't.
Or you could take the 'universal welfare' approach of supplying so much money that they will have room to make some bad decisions with it, at the expense of all the people who have to supply the productivity backing that money.
no subject
You can take the 'state-socialist' / 'nanny-state' approach of supplying your welfare in kind (or in restricted currencies like food stamps), which keep people from making poor purchasing decisions and requiring additional welfare payments / emergency treatment to make up for them.
Or you can take the 'libertarian' approach of supplying enough money that they _could_ survive on it if they made vaguely sensible decisions, and letting them starve / suffer from their illnesses if they don't.
Or you could take the 'universal welfare' approach of supplying so much money that they will have room to make some bad decisions with it, at the expense of all the people who have to supply the productivity backing that money.