[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't they agree on questions of morality without a "treaty"? This sort of implies that if there weren't state laws, I would be raping and pillaging my neighbors. I'm not making a judgment here on the issue of the state, just that it (or a similar framework) isn't a necessary institution to a generally agreed upon moral framework. (Churches are a good counter example.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that it needs a treaty or any form of written contract but some sort of binding agreement that institutes the means to sanction those who break it. And to create such a sanction mechanism people have to agree upon giving up their own powers or basically their right to freely force their own powers upon others.

And I believe eventually this will lead, in equilibrium, to every rational human being entering the same agreement agreement basically constituting a protection agency called "the state."