> Why? You're asking why the "poors" will have second thoughts about openly criticising the hand that, literally, feeds them?

No, I'm not asking why the poor would stop complaining. I am pointing out that empirically we observe that people who receive government largess don't shut up! (And that's true for all kinds of government largess, eg also for subsidies for rich people or companies.)

No, the "why" question I am asking is: why do you think that recipients of government handouts would shut up, when in the real world they haven't done so?

> You're turning the "poors" into slaves, into slaves to the Government that is keeping them (the "poors") on the Government's payroll.

Would you say the same about eg car drivers, if the government provides roads free of charge to the user? Or about anyone who benefits from national defense? Or are in-kind benefits excluded from your calculus? In that case, would giving poor people food and clothing and shelter instead of money mean they are no longer 'slaves' by your definition?

(For comparison: real-world, actual slaves like in the American South were usually provided with in-kind benefits to keep them alive. Money rarely changed hands, partially because it leads to autonomy.)