> (6) Although I am a great defender of the necessity of law in
> a complex society, W is mistaken that all organized
> societies have required law if that means rules laid down by
> authoritaive bodies and enforced by specialized institutions
> like courts and police.
That is an unfairly narrow interpretation of what I said, although the latter was not a paragon of clarity either. What I wanted to say is that there is no such thing as a society based solely on consensual participation, without some form of formal or informal rules of conduct, some form of authority that makes decisions in cases of conflicting interests, and some form of sanctions against those who break those rules. Many hunting and gathering or pastoralist societies (cf. in S. Africa) had much flatter hierarchies and much restricted power of chieftains, but they did have rules that were relatively stable, even if unwritten. Whether such informal rules are "morality" or "law" is another point, however. In my argument, I made the distinction between the two based on their voluntary or obligatory nature - a distinction that makes more sense in a modern society but may be blurred (or not - we have no way of knowing due to scarce records) in hunting and gathering societies
My main point is that purely voluntaristic society, as some imagine it to be under socialism or anarchism, is unattainable.
Cheers,
Wojtek