There is now an incentive for the people who control the system to reduce the level of social assistance, because in so doing they increase the number of people who "voluntarily" submit to risky experimentation.
This proposal seems like adding a new option on an individual level, but on a social level it paradoxically leads to a situation where that group has less choice.
It's like playing the game of chicken on a road where the first person to swerve from a head-on collision loses. Paradoxically the winning move is to visibly remove your own choice by throwing your steering wheel out the window.
More choice is not always better.
That's quite the logical leap there. And is one that could be made about literally any effort to help the poor, so, i'm not quite sure you've made your point.
Why? Why shouldn't these people be free to make that choice for themselves?
> To approach it another way, as long as one group of people has an economic benefit from abusing another group, there’s a problem.
How, exactly, are you defining 'abuse'? Is it abuse to offer someone money to do something? It's hard to see how it could be abusive to give someone an option that they didn't previously have.