 It might be said that people like Drew do contribute to production – they do so by supplying their share of inherited resources for others to use for productive purposes. But a distinction can be made between the contribution that the inherited resources putatively credited to Drew make to production, and Drew’s own contribution. If Drew were not on the island we imagined, the other islanders could still use the inherited resources that we have supposed are otherwise credited to Drew. They could work just as hard, and produce just as much, as they do when Drew is there and is credited with an equal share of these resources. But they would be better off because they would not have to give a portion of this product to Drew in return for using some of the island’s inherited wealth. This, so the argument runs, shows that Drew themselves is not in any real sense contributing economically to the society. So is it fair for Drew to get an income without working (assuming that they could if they so choose)? Some argue that Drew has as much right to a share of the machines as anyone else and it is up to them what benefit they get from this (Van Parijs 1995, drawing on Dworkin 1985, 2000; Birnbaum 2012). Others argue that cases like this show that a just distribution of assets should be more sensitive to individuals’ own interest in making direct use of the assets (see van Donselaar 2009; see also Van der Veen 1998, White 2007).