Accodding to Rawls, an individual's possession of a productive talent only justifies an inequitable distribution of primary goods in her favor when that distribution incentivizes productivity in a way that benefits the worst-off. But what about talents whose very exercise seems to require that their possessors have significantly more leisure than their fellowmen? Doesn't the leisure required for the exercise of these talents provide a justification for inequitable distribution quite apart from any consideration of incentives?