One of the common arguments against welfare is that people "Abuse the system," that they aren't really trying to find work, that they just want to live off government money. I really hate this criticism, because those people are first in line on my list of people who should get unconditional welfare.
For example: I have this -- er, person unavoidably connected to my life. Let's call him fuckface. Fuckface is an emotionally and physically violent person. He's also a pathological liar. Those go in column A, "Bad."
Column B contains the things that I wouldn't call intrinsically bad, because moralizing about addiction is shitty. Fuckface uses most of the drugs, most of the time, including the archetypal really scary one with needles. He has no interest in seeking treatment or moderating this quality.
Fuckface would definitely like to be given a sufficient amount of money to continue existing and wouldn't bother with most other people because they're not of particular use to him. But there is no mechanism in our society for that expense to be distributed among all of us and administered dispassionately.
So, instead, Fuckface builds relationships with individuals who can provide him shelter until they get too sick or afraid of him and kick him out. Often, that means his parents.
His influence on the collective wealth of society is nonzero: he has a serious, acute negative effect on many, many lives. But the frequency and severity of that suffering could be drastically reduced if his goal, financial subsistence, were met by the government.
Fuckface is a bad worker. He's unreliable, high on the job, and sloppy. It's not good for any individual business endeavor to have him. And when he isn't working, he's not just frozen in a tube: he's surviving off the suffering of anyone who feels any vestigial love or obligation to him, to their detriment.
So, why the hell do we care if he "abuses" the welfare system? It's a shitload better than actually abusing real people to get the same support.