Under Rawlsian liberalism, egoism as psychological or normative egoism does not hold, or at least does not affect the outcome of social justice that Rawls seems to put forth, that individuals who are unaware of their status behind the veil of ignorance cannot advocate principles that disregard the well-being of another. However, there is a lack of specificity in Rawlsian theories of justice which means that there is ample room that it can always become a Nozickian state full of gift-giving and only charity to rely on. Human dignity and the respect for others, and the restraint put forward by the imaginary veil of ignorance, might have been the key to the realization of Rawls’ theoretical aim, but it has not worked out well. Nozickian justice surely does need another arm of action, the law, to protect and ensure that all exchanges are just. [1]But Rawlsian justice also needs some sort of reinforcement mechanism in the real society, or else the equality principle would be void of reality. In fact, most of equal employment and opportunity between men and women have been enforced more by incentives than by law. Women in business and academia are still disproportionately few, while gender equality laws have done nothing to stall this situation. Only incentives, such as individual productivity and profitability, coupled with a still existing gender prejudice, have been the mechanisms that have been put to work. Equal opportunity and status according to ability is simply so contrary to equality that it cannot automatically translate into social equality just with some principles, unless those principles have some grounding in real politics. Perhaps in this sense,although liberalism is in theory not committed to egoism, it is fatalistically egoistic.<o:p></o:p>