Some Monarchs in history were actually descended from raiders themselves, and back then when governments were less complex (Nobles and etc), they tended to become bandits when bankrupted, going into the countryside to extort people as usual. It was how their 'business' started and a way of getting it back up, running again in the long-term when they became impoverished.
Looking at their origin what makes governments differ from 'gangs' in reality?
Take this as the starting point. Imagine if there was a free market of government types where people could choose the one that serve them the best as consumers. Would they really want to choose the current governments or would some of what people know as 'gangs' be better representatives of people?
Take for example Al Capone, he provided better services to the public (His consumers) than otherwise the pro-rich U.S government would to their own public, as well as what could count as social welfare services to the poor, including free food and money sometimes as needed. He became popular not only because of 'fear' (Something the government does anyway) but because the people felt his 'gang' represented them and not the U.S or State government.
If the U.S government did not have that much state force he would likely have risen to power chances are. He started gaining defacto 'citizens' loyal to him for providing them with better services than the government.
What would be some other examples where gangs takeover the role of providing 'social services' to the poor/disabled when government abandons/betrays them?