It depends on your definitions. If you consider all legal systems to be "states," including primitive tribal ones, decentralized ones, etc., then yes, "state is a prerequisite for law" is a tautology. But today, "state" usually refers to a relatively large and relatively centralized organization governing a well-specified region that is recognized by other such states. Using that definition, a state is very clearly not a prerequisite for law.

The context that allows a system of laws to operate doesn't just spring forth spontaneously from a vacuum. Rather, it exists because we have a government based on the rule of law.

You didn't address any of the specifics in my comment.

That makes us even.

I addressed yours directly and in detail. Your claims depend on your definitions.