What makes governments 'not gangs'? Do they see gangs as competitors in reality depending?

Submitted by AbyssWatcher in illegalism (edited )

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?



You must log in or register to comment.

n_n wrote (edited )

Gangs generally have a strong hierarchical structure, that is maintained by a strong authoritarianism. So I'm pretty much against conventional gangs.


JoeMemo wrote

They see anything they can't squeeze profit out of as competitors. If they can tax gangs or get their stipend in other ways (lobbyist cash, campaign donations), then they're all for it. But they don't usually call those 'gangs', they just call them 'companies'. The police, on the other hand, love gangs because they pay them bribe money. But that money rarely gets to the top of the hierarchy up to the politicians, so street gangs are still officially criminalized.