system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What are the arguments against giving free things to cover basic necessities for everyone?

The 7 basic things that every human being requires to prosper are Food, water, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, and protection. What happens if we give all the 7 things for free to everyone, like basic rudimentary food like bread and butter or a liquid diet like soylent, basic ultra-cheap clothes that you can buy in Walmart like the 3.67$ Hanes shirts.

We are already providing police protection, fire protection to everyone. Why can't we do it for the rest of the needs? Since this morning I have been thinking about all the free stuff that I receive in any country. The first thing that came to my mind is Police protection. Even if I was a homeless person, I could pretty much approach the police to seek protection. Even if I had absolutely no money and I was in a burning building, the fireman would still show up and save me for free. They wouldn't check my Fico score before deciding if I deserve to be pulled out of the burning building or not right? Similarly, why can't we do the same to other basic things that people need?

I tried to think of a few reasons why people who say this could be bad:

1. If abuse of this free stuff is the concern, then the first thing that comes to my mind is that if you frequently call 911 without an actual emergency, they will come and arrest you. Similarly, if you frequently request free clothes or food, you could be denied these services. There are ways to prevent abuse.
2. Just because a 3.67$ basic shirt is available for free, it wouldn't prevent people from buying more expensive shirts, like a 12$ shirt. I wouldn't wear the 3.67$ shirt to the office as it makes me look cheap. But if I was homeless and that is all I had, I would happily use that. Similarly just because there is a police force available, most organizations don't exclusively rely on them. They hire private securities for their buildings and such.
3. Producing these free things cannot be such a horrendous task. We train police officers and firemen all the time and they are actually paid to receive the training. Training a human being to fight crime/fire cannot be more challenging than producing the 3.67$ Hanes shirts for the masses.
4. People won't become lazy just because they are given a free 3.67$ shirt to wear. In fact, some of us would see this as a prestige issue and work harder to buy a 12$ shirt to prove that they are successful. In fact, I think more people would be able to work harder if they are not scared of becoming homeless. If you take care of the basic needs, more people would be emboldened to go down the entrepreneurial route. I personally would quit my job and try to start a company that would benefit people, animals, and the environment if I wasn't scared of becoming homeless. The fact that I have to work to survive is what is keeping me tethered to my job.
5. Some may ask, who would manufacture these if everyone is guaranteed these basic things. Well, like I said in point 2. Some of us will not be happy with a 3.67$ shirt, eating only bread and butter every day and living in the most basic house imaginable. Some of us have the drive to excel in life and accomplish things that would differentiate us from the rest of the people. Human pride would propel a certain group of people to seek employment in warehouses where they produce these goods.
6. There will be a population explosion. Sure, we are 7.5 billion people currently, we will become a trillion people. At least 1000 of these trillion would be smart enough to figure out how to terraform Mars. The way I see it, the more the births, the more is a chance of a genetic miracle. Who knows 10,000 years from now, humans will evolve to have an extra lobe in their brains thanks to the extreme population growth!

Surely I must not be the first person to have thought of these things. Can someone tell me why providing basic things for free is a bad idea? On the contrary imagine there is a guy somewhere in the world right now, whose only goal for today is to find food. Who knows this one particular guy has the potential to cure cancer or solve global warming or do something to benefit everyone. But! He is currently busy looking for food or shelter. Imagine what he would accomplish if we solve his problem!
gpt
Many countries provide a lot of these things for "free" to those that need it. They have government programs for homeless shelters, unemployment assistance, provision of food, clothing, etc.

It's perfectly possible and really more a question of how a government decides to use their resources.

As for why not everything and not for everyone, well that gets expensive and likely inefficient. People that are well off enough to supply their own clothing can just buy their own clothes instead of government provided ones they might not even like.

You're also looking at pretty vast amounts of central planning to provide for example homes for everyone. Not only would that mean high taxes, it's also exceptionally difficult to know what people want and how to allocate resources efficiently.
 *Generally*, market forces do a pretty decent job at that, because people (in a very simplified sense) basically govern their own needs and their supply. If people want red shirts, demand for red shirts goes up, which eventually leads to a higher supply of red shirts. Doing this "by hand" efficiently is a very high hurdle and it's not very realistic that you could actually implement a system that does this as well as it happens now.