Basically every sentence I read in this comment has an enormous hole in the logic or premise. > On the other hand, if everyone had access to this capability th

Basically every sentence I read in this comment has an enormous hole in the logic or premise. > On the other hand, if everyone had access to this capability then society and civilization would grind to a halt. This is a non-sequitur. The world isn't binary. Whether this happens depends entirely on how much passive income people can generate, and a whole host of other factors that are unaccounted for. > People make things; if people don't make things, then we don't eat, we don't drink. Again, your premise is flawed. Giving everyone (say) a dollar a month doesn't mean people will stop making things. It depends how much they earn, and a ton of other factors. > The categorical imperative roughly says that something is moral only if its universal adoption would benefit society. No, that's not what it says. What is says is that the rules you live by should be universally applicable. Positive or negative effects on society are beside the point. > So there is a break there. This is a giant leap in your logic. You have neither shown that this wouldn't benefit society, nor that there would be a break if it didn't.