> 3. Laws imply law enforcement, which implies use of force. Are you and your buddies willing to enforce your rules on each other with lethal force? In the exa

> 3. Laws imply law enforcement, which implies use of force. Are you and your buddies willing to enforce your rules on each other with lethal force? In the example, assuming they were locked in a bare room, maybe they will come up with some situation specific rule like "that corner is for pissing". I think it's plausible they would enforce that physically. Or at least what I heard about prison makes me think that. But there are also some immemorial rules/laws that they wouldn't need to come up with it because everyone already knows them, like the ban on unjustified violence, theft and rape. I think 10 normal guys would be willing to physically enforce those rules on each other with lethal force. > 2. When you break the law, say murder, the ultimate victim is the state. The person you murdered is just evidence in the state's case against you. This is why there are Victims Right's movements. This is not really true with such buddie rules: breaking them may hurt your friends' feelings, but there wont really be an equivalent to it harming the social fabric. I think that's a bit of a modern perspective. There are still countries that allow private criminal prosecution. And for that matter most of civil law does not directly involve the state I imagine.