> I think you are mistaking natural law (innate morality) for a bunch of words some corporate lobbyist has written down. Not at all. Innate morality is very di

> I think you are mistaking natural law (innate morality) for a bunch of words some corporate lobbyist has written down. Not at all. Innate morality is very different from law. Law, as I explained it, is about coordination problems. Such as solving the tragedy of the commons. In 'the state of nature' (scare quotes because I believe never existed, but I am referencing the philosophical concept). i.e. when society has not yet formed laws or large organization. There are many problems that need a solution that is universally followed. This can be actual tragedy of the commons (i.e. overgrazing the field, chopping down productive forrest, not shitting in wells) or it can be simple coordination problems (i.e. everyone drives on the right side if the track, people climbing have right of way over people descending). These lead to rules that a society agrees on. People who break those rules get ostracized, those people then complain and argue, which formalizes these rules. At some point, the result of breaking these widely established rules moves beyond ostracizing. Rule breakers have harmed the community, so the community gets to harm back through seizure, imprisonment, pain, or other methods. At that point you have laws. And they are a good thing. People formed them because it made things better. From here on, laws need changing, probably because of circumstances. They also need expansion, because new problems can also be solved this way. At that point you get a legislative process, with the authority to set and change laws. Hence you get power, politics, other things that are also bad. But that doesn't mean laws are inherently bad. They come from a good place, but they have significant downsides. Besides all this, laws are required to be a state, and being a state is required to have the military strength to avoid being plundered or subjugated by other groups.