These two principles are bound by a certain order. The first principle, the distribution of civil liberties with respect for equality, is before the second principle, which distributes social and economic goods. In other words, we cannot decide to give up some of our civil liberties in favour of a greater economic advantage. On the contrary, we must meet the requirements of the first principle before moving on to the second principle. From Rawls` point of view, this serial provision of principles expresses a fundamental rational preference for certain types of goods, that is, for those embodied in civil liberties, over other types of goods, i.e. an economic advantage. In the early days of the cosmic cycle, humanity lived on an immaterial plane and danced on the air in a kind of fairytale country, where there was no need for food or clothing, and no private property, family, government or laws. Then, gradually, the process of cosmic decay began its work, and humanity became bound to the earth and felt the need for food and protection. When people lost their primitive fame, class differences emerged, and they made agreements between them and accepted the institution of private property and the family. With this theft began murder, adultery and other crimes, and so people came together and decided to appoint a man among them to maintain order in exchange for some of the produce from their fields and herds. He was called «the Great Elect» (Mahasammata), and he received the title of raja because it pleased the people. Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a theory of the will of the treaty, according to which all contractual conditions are binding on the parties because they have chosen these conditions for themselves. This was not true when Hobbes wrote Leviathan; At the time, more emphasis was placed on the review, i.e. a reciprocal exchange of the benefits necessary for the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit clauses that stemmed from the nature of the contractual relationship and not from the decisions made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that the theory of the social contract is more compatible with the contractual law of Hobbes and Locke`s time than with the contractual law of our time, and that certain characteristics of the social contract that seem to us to be unsanquentanomal, such as the belief that we are bound by a treaty formulated by our distant ancestors, Hobbes` contemporaries would not have seemed as foreign as we are.  The social contract was considered an «event» in which individuals came together and surrendered some of their individual rights for others to delinceour their rights.  This led to the creation of the state, a sovereign entity, as individuals were today under their rule, which would create laws to regulate social interactions.