The definition of the word itself was provided by the dictionary entry I provided earlier.
I also gave the definition myself, that is what society is. Yet that is not how hansen6 used the term.
You apparently want it to be defined here in another sense that would explain why the members of a society would choose or be otherwise impelled to 'serve' it, and share in it, despite the state of being a member of society meaning for most that you are already benefitting from it in some way.
Not exactly. You have extended the definition that you provided - the aggregate of all people in a community (all the individuals in an area added up, with certain orderered structures) without any explanation. It is an explanation of this extension that I am after.
How do you go from the definition of society as the aggregate of the people, to serving and sharing the aggregate.
I don't have an issue with people choosing to be a part of a group of individuals who work together, trade, cooperate, play, engage is social activity etc.
I have a problem with the concept of serving it. I don't even want to know why must you serve it, but how can you serve it? What is the it that you are serving?
When you are serving something, you are serving someone. Whom are you serving?
If you consider for a moment a small family-run business as a society in microcosm, if each family member benefitted from the business doing well but did not give much or anything at all back, and kept all their gains to themselves, you would not be serving the business and the business may well suffer somewhat as a result, making things harder for all else involved. When the business eventually hits the rocks, you will probably suffer somewhat yourself as a direct result, or else your children, grandchildren, etc. That's as simplistic as I can make it.
If I understand it correctly, your example explains only why communism wouldn't work, as people can benefiting directly from common ownership and equitable share of profits without putting in any effort themselves - ultimately, everyone suffers. This does not explain society.
But it was defined adequately earlier. You are now asking why people would choose or otherwise be impelled to 'serve' it.
It was not defined adequately, because that is not the way in which the term was used. The term society has been used to mean a variety of things that don't make sense if you input "aggregate of people..." in its place. Why should you serve the "aggregate of the people"? And how do you serve an aggregate?
I am asking - to uncover the extension that you and hansen have made - what is so different about 'society' that it means it is able to compel people to serve it, when other groups of people are not afforded the same luxury.
How is government different from the mob?
The 'law-makers' make their laws to protect the people living in their society (or at least they are supposed to).
Law-makers make laws to protect their faction within society.
An individual should be forced, within reason, to be fair and honourable in their dealings, because although I expect you would always behave justly in your dealings with people, Q [no sarcasm], not everyone will.
Fair and honourable? If you are talking about prosecuting fraud that is not an issue.
Therefore the use of force in this particular instance, within reason, can help prevent exploitation of the vulnerable by the powerful (or at least it is supposed to, in the concept of a fair 'society').
That is a fine position to take, but you are not talking about a definition of society as a term, you are talking about what your political notion of a "fair society" is.
This conflation of two things has been the problem, I am talking definitions, others are talking politics.
I'm sure if you asked a top criminal prosecution lawyer or judge if they were contributing to 'society', they would answer in the affirmative straightaway, without questioning what the word society meant in the question. I might be wrong.
My point is that you have not defined "society" as a tangible term. They are contributing to individuals who make up society, they are contributing to upholding law and order which benefits every person within their jurisdiction. They are providing a service for the people who make up "society" yes. But they are not contributing to an aggregate.
Pizza delivery men, posties, brickies, entrepreneurs and businessmen are all contributing to the lives of people who live in our society, they make their living by serving people who are part of our society.
We exist in a society together. As in, I'm not left to fend for myself if my entire family and community of friends were to die suddenly and I lose my livelihood. Should I be?
But that goes beyond the definition of society that you initially posted, this is what I am getting at. There is a leap from the definition of 'society' to the common usage of the term, which involves the abstract feelings and beliefs that it evokes in people. To you, society is clearly more than an aggregate of individuals from a specific place. I want you and hansen6 to explain to me the essence of that.