If you continue with the idea of transfers, which is, in effect, the current government buying off parts of its constituents, then "democracy", whatever has remained of it in the West, will die for good. What happens if I receive money from the Government but in the same time I'm also actively opposed to said Government's actions? Will I be allowed to speak against the Government that is, as a matter of fact, paying me? Will I have second thoughts of doing it? Will the Government cut off aid to me if I'm too vocal against said Government's actions?

All this to say that all we're doing is turning most of our countries' citizens into de facto slaves, people with no political free-will and who are well-aware that if they were to speak out against the powers that be they risk destitution.

> What happens if I receive money from the Government but in the same time I'm also actively opposed to said Government's actions?

Nothing? That's how it's worked in literally all functioning democracies. The purpose of any government, democratic or not, is to benefit its constituents. If it doesn't do that, we have a moral obligation to destroy the tyrants. Those benefits range in their tangible value, from hard to quantify things, like establishing public expectations of behavior (laws), to easy to quantify (subsidies like wellfare, farming subsidies, etc).

I'm truly baffled by your take that seems to insist that helping the needy somehow makes you moreso a slave to the government than the whole monopoly on legitimate use of force thing.

You are mixing up lots of different ideas.

You can have net transfers to the poor without turning most of your country's into net recipients.

I also don't understand why you assume that people who are net recipients would stop complaining or voicing their opinion? That's not at all what happens in practice.