I think the charitable interpretation would be [0]: Conflation of economic value with non-leisure classification. That is, if it had economic value, then they

I think the charitable interpretation would be [0]: Conflation of economic value with non-leisure classification. That is, if it had economic value, then they should be able to make a living doing it. And doing an activity for a living could certainly be seen as an operating definition for "non-leisure activity". So, by such definition, if everyone is free to run around and do whatever activity they want, then either every activity is economically valued and thereby non-leisure... Or everyone can somehow take part in leisurely activities without regard to making a living. Which could certainly be seen as an operation definition for "leisure-filled utopia". [0] Not GP. This is me possibly putting words into GP's mouth, while also asserting that these are not my words.