Rawls is not against equality but he assumes that most socio-economic systems will allow for some inequities, and thus outlines his second principle to deal with those inequities. In this system, the state is powerful enough to provide security for its people on a basic level, but also strives to ensure that no class in society becomes so marginalized and disenfranchised economically that it becomes impossible for any person on the bottom rungs of society to engage in self-improvement. Rawls famously suggested that all societies should be created under what he calls a 'veil of ignorance,' or that rules and regulations should be constructed blindly when creating a society, without any knowledge of what the status of the decision-maker would be in the hypothetical world. In other words, when creating an ideal nation, would you be willing to live under the rules and conditions of the least-privileged members and regard them as fair (Storelli 50)? There is also a certain assumption of moral 'good' on behalf of the decision-maker in this scenario, though, given that Rawls states that governing principles of justice are "that rational and free persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamentals of the terms of their association" (Storelli 50). In other words, Rawls assumes that his ideal, objective decision-maker would not want to disenfranchise members of society, even if he or she knew his or her own future position would not be that of the most disenfranchised member."Rawls believed that his principles would be accepted freely by rational egoists in a 'contractual state of nature' or 'contract situation'" and presumes a degree of rationalism on the part of members of society not only to protect their own interest, but to acknowledge the interests of others (Storelli 56)

Although the ways in which constitutional liberties are conceptualized may vary from society to society, most of the major, Western democracies assume that the values of freedom, voting, and the right to certain property protections are...

More controversial, however, is Rawls' notion of how and when redistribution should occur. Without some redistribution of wealth and opportunities, the poorest citizens will not be able to run for office, and may even have difficulty accessing voting booths. If entire classes of citizens' health is poor, if they are denied education, and they lack basic social support services to enable them to transition to a new job, their condition will deteriorate and they will lack basic democratic liberties. This is why the principle of redistributing wealth to favor the least-advantaged members of society is sometimes necessary, according to Rawls (Storelli 50).
One of the most common critiques of Rawls is that he does not sufficiently account for the importance of individual will and effort in attaining a particular social status, and too much redistribution of wealth can cause persons not to take adequate responsibility for their economic decisions (Lamont & Favor 2011). However, Rawls points out that prejudice can cause economic disenfranchisement, or historical circumstances that have nothing to do with the actions of the individual. Wealth can also be the result of forces not pertaining to the individual, like inheritance. For a good society to provide liberty, it cannot allow opportunities to be restricted. A lack of regulation can allow those with unfair advantages that are not the result of merit to prosper.