Last month there was some controversy about a proposal from a Wisconsin state representative to prevent the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cards for shellfish, among other things. Progressives objected that this proposal was “just the latest example of conservatives around the country being loudly concerned about the scourge of poor people making their own decisions.”

I agree wholeheartedly with the progressive objection: the restriction is paternalistic and frankly, insulting. But I was also left wondering why progressives don’t push the objection further and seek to replace all forms of “in kind” redistribution with a basic income guarantee? If it is wrong to prevent those using SNAP from making their own decisions about which food to buy, isn’t it also wrong to prevent people in poverty from making their own decisions about education, healthcare, and retirement?

Progressives tend to support “in kind” redistribution programs like public education, public healthcare, Social Security, etc. But these programs prevent people in poverty from making their own decisions about which school to send their children to, how much to save for retirement, how much to spend on healthcare relative to food, etc. Alternatively, we could just write a check to everyone in poverty for the amount of these programs and let people make their own decisions. A basic income guarantee is not only more efficient than traditional redistribution—it’s more respectful.