> Why not subsidize the groceries instead, then?

Then you'd have the State giving money directly to the likes of Unilever (think tooth-paste) and big agro-business (think bread). Subsidising transport instead is the lesser of many evils.

> And let the market find efficiencies with reduced transportation distances.

Market doesn't work when it comes to most of us.

> Or better yet, just subsidize the poorest among us,

This is just praying to bringing in servitude amongst us, it will go like this: "we will stop subsidising your daily bread if you stop voting for us". The same goes for the idea of UBI more generally speaking.

What? That doesn't make any sense. A political party can't threaten to take away anything when you stop voting for them. Instead, you simply get the policies of the party you elected in their place. If UBI is popular then there's nothing stopping the opposition from offering it, or even promising to double it. But even if they said "elect us and we'll take away your UBI", then that's just not getting a hamburger because you ordered the pasta.

And what aspect of that arrangement looks like servitude? I don't usually associate servitude with the idea of getting paid a stipend regardless of whether I choose to work. Do you know who has historically enjoyed such a stipend? The Lords and Ladies who had all the servants!

Also, there are plenty of implementations of a grocery subsidy that don't have the state giving money directly to big agro-business. For example where I am, groceries are exempt from sales taxes; this is equivalent to a flat tax plus a specific grocery subsidy applied at point of sale to the consumer. This benefits any food producer, large or small.

> A political party can't threaten to take away anything when you stop voting for them.

We must be living in two different political worlds. "Vote for us or you'll lose your social-related benefits" is already an existing thing when it comes to elections in the Western world.

> And what aspect of that arrangement looks like servitude?

Choosing your (political, in this case) masters on account of said political masters throwing you some crumbles from time to time, this is indeed servitude.

> "Vote for us or you'll lose your social-related benefits" is already an existing thing when it comes to elections in the Western world.

Is this, perhaps, because the party saying it is a (relatively) left-wing party trying to ensure social benefits for all, and their main or sole competitor is a far-right party trying to destroy the very idea of compassion?

'Cause there's a big, big difference between "you'd better vote for us, or we'll destroy the things you like", and "you'd better vote for us, because the other guys will destroy the things you like". And while the latter isn't always true, it's not remotely a threat. It's either an inevitability, or a flat-out lie.