That relies upon what you mean by "laws."
On the off chance that the import of the inquiry is, are composed laws fundamental? At that point the appropriate response is plainly NO, they are not important to presence of society. The confirmation of this is that human social orders existed for several centuries prior to composing was even designed.
Yet, ALL social orders have SOME sort of laws, if by "laws" we signify "life affirming guidelines." The way of life of a given society consistently incorporates implicit principles with respect to what is appropriate or inappropriate in different parts of human relations and, even among pre-proficient people groups, regularly likewise incorporates very explicit, cognizant standards that must be followed on torment of discipline.
No general public, for example, endures murder of a nearby partner — family or companion — for reasons of avarice or desire. However, a few social orders (especially in the antiquated world) happily endured child murder of undesirable or distorted kids. Also, a few social orders endured as well as savored warlike attacks on neighboring groups of people, to murder or oppress them, grab and assault their ladies, and loot their harvests or assets, "since they could." This didn't disregard the social code in such a general public. Yet, on the off chance that an individual from that "adversary" clan were a visitor in one's family unit, that would change the image definitely. The host would not debase his home, and his honor, by slaughtering a visitor. Or maybe, honor requested he broaden the best neighborliness he could manage, to invite his visitor.
That is only a model, however, ideally, it gives an image of how confounded and nuanced the possibility of "law" can be, even among "crude" people groups. These standards may not adjust to OUR advanced thought of what "law" requires, yet that is on the grounds that their antiquated codes of honor and disgrace were DIFFERENT, not on the grounds that they came up short on the personality of being "laws." The individuals who noticed them felt similarly as limited by them, and similarly prone to be censured by their neighbors for abusing them, as though these "laws" had been composed into a code.
The "laws" of antiquated societies just as pre-educated contemporary societies additionally cover such things as the concurred social structure (connection rules, including who is allowed to mate with whom, and who is allowed to acquire property or titles from whom), the political structure (a totalitarian ruler, an agreement board of sages, a direct-mainstream vote lion's share rule), the allowed employments of terrains or products held in like manner by the general public (for example, brushing is alright, fencing it off and developing yields isn't, etc. These are "laws" in the full feeling of the word.
The word "Law" has never been adequately 'defined' . [ as in society ]
Various 'authorities' such as governments, dictionaries, universities, and religions all fail miserably to define what should be a simple concept.
If you visit anywhere you will usually find one of two scenarios:
I originally wrote this long ago:
"Law judges what an autonomous entity does to others."
I might now rephrase, simpler:
"Law judges whether what you do violates someone else".
That scribbled, I am interested to know more about what you think:
Keep posting.