Rawls’ theory is admittedly an ideal theory, but at times it seems that even if one accepts the theory, the theory nonetheless produces irresolvable difficulties. The notion of equality of opportunity seems like such an example. Rawls is clearly aware of the tension between formal and substantive equality. Whether he successfully negotiates the two is debatable, but the crucial question remains: how does one avoid reproducing the inequalities that were meant to be neutralized by mobilizing a configuration of equality? Rawls places much emphasis on one’s starting place:

The primary subject of justice, as I have emphasized, is the basic structure of society. The reason for this is that its effects are so profound and pervasive, and present from birth. This structure favors some starting places over others in the division of the benefits of social cooperation. It is these inequalities which the two principles are to regulate. Once these principles are satisfied, other inequalities are allowed to arise from men’s voluntary actions in accordance with the principle of free association. (§16)

Given a just system and proper starting place, however, any resulting inequality could be acceptable in principle. Since Rawls does not seem to stress the necessary coercive mechanisms that would prevent such subsequent inequalities from returning to a state of massive imbalance, it is worth pointing out that such an argument is open to cooptation by hegemonic positions to justify actually existing inequalities even if this is unintended by Rawls. One question is to what degree can men’s “voluntary actions” be considered private affair insulated both ways from the social edifice. Since men are not totally private animals, at least not in Rawls’ configuration of society, what is to prevent some permissible inequalities from begetting further inequalities? Part of the solution is perhaps to make some fundamental assumptions about human tendencies. But some of the assumptions nonetheless seem to require extraordinary support even if the reality is explicitly limited to a congress of liberals susceptible to Rawlsian theory.