Lemme get this, roughly, would you say that a social setting would function with the collective understanding and acceptance of the rule?
My take on the matter is, concerning western and european civilisations dating back a few hundred years. Primarily more so for the west, people moved from the idea of might is right to it may not be whole for brute strength to be the only factor for society and interaction of its units. But prior to the promotion or even an idea of right of the individual society was probably working fine, in their sense of the idea atleast. But in later centuries to today, we see the flaw in that old system, because now constitutions safeguards the rights of the individual person. And it's really quite impossible to safeguard that right without the presence of a somehow autonomous body exercising some authority. Because as far as people have come we've really not evolved much in the behavioural sections. Wars and crimes are not the exception of any social interaction but the norm. That people can come together and not undermine each other to this extent is baffling. Our societies and that they work as well as this is actually the exception and we're all for some reason trying to make this exception even better. But individuals can work to make this exception better only with a feeling of safety that their well being is guaranteed by something. Because without that guarantee we'd pretty much be in the small tribe mentality.