"If someone is mentally unstable or disabled to the point that they are incapable of comprehending the laws then it's ultimately irrelevant because they first and foremost have no comprehension of what they are supposed to abide by and secondly don't have the capacity to determine if their actions do or do not comply."

I would agree that this is irrelevant if the legal system didn't also include laws to protect those incapable of comprehending the law. See Connecticut General Statute § 53a-46a (h)(3) (2009), which makes illegal the execution of inmates whose "mental capacity was significantly impaired or [whose] ability to conform [their] conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired but not so impaired in either case as to constitute a defense to prosecution[.]" So, at least within the framework of the legal system, we have a protection of a right to life (which I would call an inalienable right) even for those subject to punishment under the law, according to their ability to comprehend the law. I believe the state later outlawed capital punishment entirely, but the point stands: mental impairment isn't irrelevant to the law. With that in mind, we're forced to accept the massive stretch you offered [...]

I shall end my debate response here, because I have now read your edit to the original post, and I must admit, I find the act of imagining the society without laws more productive and more interesting than my previous aim. I have enjoyed discussing this with you, and hope these changes come to pass.