All laws are non physical
You cant feel, touch, smell or taste laws.
Meaning they are fiction. The creation of multiple human minds.
Laws are only enforceable provided people in general have faith in them OR they are administered by a totalitarian regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
Laws could be described as aggregate faith. That is the combining of all peoples faith.
Making laws - Parliament of Australia
See The ultimate authority of laws, below
Most of the laws you abide by where created before you where born. You had no say in ther creation
Most laws require more effort to be changed or removed than it took to create them.
Considering that the majority of laws where created before the majority of people where born is this fair or just?
If you look at any law, and ask what is the authority for that law, it may go back to another law. For Statute laws that could be a countries constitution. That could also be the case for precedent law. Then if you ask what is the authority for the constitution, it could be, like in the case of Australia a law in another country. Then if you ask the authority for that law it may be the monarch of the country concerned. If you where them to ask what is the authority of the existence of the monarch, it could be that of heredity. Then if you ask who was the first monarch you may not be able to find out. But its possible, that it was the person that had the best army. How did they get that army? By persuasion or force? more likely the latter. So even in a supposed democratic society is the ultimate authority, taking into account that the important laws where created before most people were born, is it that we live by laws origionally created be despots in totalitarian regimes?
Is if fair or logical to look at laws in this way?
I dont no, but it would have to be done very slowly, as has been shown in the very few fringe things that have changed, such as the laws about gay marriage.
I feel the problem with changing the system would be in getting consensus on what it needs to be changed to. Or for that matter that it even needs to be changed. There is no consensus on what the meaning of life is. Ther not even any consensus as to what life is.
However ther does seem to be a growing consensus that the present system is not working. But there is a lot of apathy, about whether anything can be done about it. This would seem to be an admission that the general populace is powerless to do anything. That democracy is not what it is supposed to be.