It has of if imagining that with the time the two principles would not obtain to take care of the general expectations due to its limitation in only satisfying what he is more basic in the relations. The conviviality is known that human being does not restrict itself to the justice slight knowledge and yes to the search for indispensable corporeal properties to its survival (foods, housing, vestments) and to get these resources the fight would be inevitable. So that the principles considered for Rawls if keep firm, it would be necessary that the goods of the nature equitable were distributed or exactly enough so that, in scarcity, did not generate the competition; the right to the property immediately would have to be enclosed to the one of basic freedom, since it would not have necessity of fights between individuals to guarantee its land. If the beginning of basic freedom it does not contemplate the ambient, geographic conditions becomes mere theoretical. The contract is deriving of the hypothetical original position of equality, then none of the parts? had to the veil of the ignorance? it has knowledge of its ownerships until that moment, is all vacant, only guide them to the rationality. But if they possessed housings or a minimum of certainty of reason that caused such right to these existing properties previous to the contract, the parts would not go to cogitate a distribution of the same ones. In this manner the competition for territory, for space could knock down in little time the beginning of freedom, since the rationality if does not raise above of the basic necessities that must be supplied. If the justice principles are accepted in the original position and to adopt them voluntarily to the people? in the truth is this the condition? they will be really the base of the justice sense. But if the parts will have accurate notion of its situation they certainly will be used to advantage of the contingencies that possuam before the contract (RAWLS, 1997).