I think probably the distinction we're making here is just one of scale and acceptance. I don't see your distinctions as fundamental: 1. If 9 of the ten friend

I think probably the distinction we're making here is just one of scale and acceptance. I don't see your distinctions as fundamental: 1. If 9 of the ten friends consent and one doesn't they can still be forced to follow the rule the nine friends decided on. 2. Although it's a smaller scale, there absolutely is a 'social fabric' that can be harmed in a group of ten friends. 3. I don't think laws necessitate the use of lethal force, but yes, groups of people e.g. in sports or school do sometimes use violence to enforce group decisions on their members. In some early societies, there was a basic assumption that broadly speaking the head of a household should have the right to manage their affairs as they wished. Laws were there to mediate between households (rather than individuals) and the big benefit they give to justify the loss of freedom is the control and management of blood feuds, which otherwise can be devastatingly destructive.