I think the distinction should be between rules and "laws," since the connotation in this case can lead to centralized governance via coercion of taxpayers.
My hope is that our evolution will see the implementation of an insurance/defense agency economy via voluntary means. This means an economy where these agencies prosper when we're healthy and at peace, and they fail via loss of consumer faith. It's an economy where you have to opt into the rules in order to participate. No one will force you to opt in, but if you don't and want to live in that area, you'd find it hard to to conduct business since the agencies couldn't guarantee you weren't a liability, and thus wouldn't serve you because you're not covered. Coverage could be obtained simply by agreeing to the set rules of the community in which you want to live.
This seems far fetched and impossible now, but I believe this is inevitably where humanity will go, as "state" is an antiquated and no longer needed vehicle of societal security. It only serves to divide us through flags, anthems, and pledges of allegiance to legislators.
Not sure where you are from prufarchy but here in the states, a large portion of what is prosecuted as corporate crime is based on regulatory rulings from agencies that have no legislative power. We have completely given rules written by unelected bureaucrats the weight of law and we are suffering from it.
That's a fair statement that I agree with entirely, but I'd point that the relationship between government and these agencies is what facilitates all of these bizarre contradictions. The revolving door between the private fed and the public government comes to mind as an example. I don't wanna be the guy shouting "blame government," but the fact is that our situation has been made infinitely worse through statism.