1. How does Rawls' framework operate when a minority undertaking civil disobedience is unable to remedy the injustice being protested? Does the minority have to accept perpetual protest that still respects the constitution of society, or would Rawls accept (non-violent) escalation which would create serious disorder?
2. If injustice occurs without protest or civil disobedience that forces reform, how does this reflect on that society? Can we say that society is no longer believe in liberal ideals? Or is it simply a lapse in judgement that may be later rectified?