 In recent work, after explicating his concept of desert, T. M. Scanlon presents an extended argument designed to show “not just that the particular conception of desert that [he has] examined … plays no role in distributive justice. It is rather that initially plausible claims that individuals deserve certain economic benefits turn out, on closer examination, either to be invalid or to reduce to claims of justice of some other identifiable sort” (see Scanlon 2013, 2018). Scanlon’s claim seems to be that no fundamentally desertist theory of distributive justice is correct. 