I don't know, I kind of love the idea of basic sustenance being a hassle-free given and "money for food" being limited the realm of pleasure or entertainment.

Not to make any argument for the feasibility of the idea, of course.

So, to be clear, non-universal foodstamps (what exists now) are ok, but if there were universal foodstamps that then became non-universal, then those non-universal foodstamps would not be ok and also proof that universal foodstamps are bad and scary?

'Ok' is tricky — we're weighing an unhealthy reliance on the government that gives it a dangerous amount of power against the well-being and guaranteed sustenance of our fellow citizens.

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.

Good point. Because as we all know need based food stamps are never subject to political meddling!