Beg your pardon, but this is also pretty ridiculous...
Traffic is perhaps the easiest system to give a simple example...
Society is a complete description of it's members. And the laws it makes are those rules by which the society, at some point, agreed it's members shall be bound. I remember there was a similar discussion some time ago, and I proposed the question: what if, in Libya, the interim government should propose a new constitution and set of laws, and this was greeted with cheering in the streets and general popular approval all over the country. Do you then think that the children, and grand children, of those expressing their approval now, should be bound by those laws even after 100 years or more? (bearing in mind that laws should and can be changed from time to time, in order to reflect changes in culture, technology etc). Even more importantly, do you think that those who do not approve of some or all of the new government's proposed constitution and legislation, should be bound by it anyway?
Of course, society describes its members. So what. Just because a group of people does something doesn't inherently make it right or wrong.
We could bring back slavery. I could make a law that all geriatric men and women be killed because they are a "drain" on society. I could make any substance illicit with the stroke of a pen. I could give privileges to anybody in any industry so as to reduce competition. I could put a star of david on your arm and send you to the gulag. I could do lots of things...
Quoting a true intellectual (sorry not sure who he is as I lost the reference):
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
Is that crystal clear enough for you?