"This procedure comes to a rest as soon as, for each pair of comprehensive, that is, internal-cum-external, endowments, there is at least one person who prefers either endowment to the other." (Van Parijs [1995:74=2009:120])
"In this light, let us first consider the objection that our criterion justifies far too little redistribution. It is enough for one queer fellow to consider blindness a blessing for compensation to the blind to cease to be required. To tackle this challenge, one should begin by stressing that the relevant preference schedules must be genuine and somehow available to the people concerned. [････] It can only stop when it is true that at least one person who knows and understands all the consequences of having B rather than A judges in the light of her coonception of a good life that B is no worse than A. Some of the queer fellows one may have in mind can no doubt be disqualified on the ground that they do not understand what they are talking about. If any are left, they are likely to belong to isolated subsocieties, whose cultural world is unavailable to others (this is precisely why these regard them as queer), and hence whose preference schedules cannot be viewed as generally available. If these two conditions are met, that is, if there is no problem with either understanding or availability -- and if, therefore, there is no 'queerness' left -- there is nothing shocking, it seems to me, in discontinuing redistribution."
(Van Parijs[1995:77=2009:126])