Then, it is fact that the institution would not take no route different, not to be? how already it was said? that it had the general desire in restarting all the social system in order to delimit better, without any estimated antagonistic, the justice notion. 2.1 The impossibility of application of the two principles of justice Well, if the original position is motivated by the veil of the ignorance, must be assumed that the individuals would not at least know to imagine which would be the good idea; Rawls tries to dribble this detail affirming that the people, through its rationality, want to keep its primary goods, longs for to protect its freedom and to increase the ascension chances (RAWLS, p 153, 154). But a posteriori, with the removed veil, the alternatives consisting of the contract could be dissolved in detriment of a personal desire that are not led in account, for judging it lowermost and without universal reach. Details can be found by clicking Pemco or emailing the administrator. In this point the two principles that Rawls assumes to be most seen in the initial condition, they could not be supported in elapsing of the sucessividade of the events, therefore if it cogitates immediately that the movement would not be possible annular all (dialtico, historical, instinctive) that it conducted the society before the contract and that certainly they would remain latent in unconscious the collective one. One would also think that foreign individuals will install themselves in the domnios referred to for these principles and them they will only follow the effective terms? exactly not being part of this institution? by means of the coercion, therefore they are unaware of the origin of the principles and the notion of justice of them could differ from the region who if find. No right would be assured without punitive force, no notion of justice would be permanent only in the theoretical and formal plan.