Right On The Right

This is something i wrote up the other day (see below). its extremely rough and is probably/likely full of typos and other such errors. please excuse these and read it for content. i am looking for criticism or praise and am hoping to stimulate some conversation so that i may better work on my theory (or possibly disprove it). it's not complete and i'm looking to respond to any questions or comments thanks.

The state is simply a greater organized crime syndicate. The prevailing government is the one that was able to assert its dominance over the others and thus set up its turf. When the british were kicked out of America for example, the british were kicked out of what the Americans saw as their turf. And then the government built up something that was more powerful then the british government. Like organized crime gangs, a government takes taxes that go towards supporting and protecting the people within its territory. What we then see is that those who do not pay these taxes then get sanctions brought against them. There is no choice as to whether one would like to take part in the state made mandates. We see that the government is in fact taking part in the activity called extortion; these are taxes. IT can be said that the government, unlike a street gang, does not use violence readily. Rather it waits to use violence when it absolutely has to. This is true, now. This has not however always been the case. So is that then the only thing that separates a “legitimate” government from a crime syndicate? Its perceived restraint when it comes to using the power of force that it monopolizes? But does it really show restraint? We can very much see that states do not in fact show restraint. They flash their gang signs (in the form of flags and banners and songs) at other states and the one with the most guns is able to keep the others at bay. Yes, the use of force is not needed as often but only because force has already been used. And now, just as the loyal members of gangs, the people of legitimate governments will kill and die for the symbols of their respective “gangs”. We must then see the fight against organized crime not as law enforcement, but as a war; as a legitimate war between two governments. The sate no longer bothers itself with its constituents because it has already forced them into submission. In actuality we should say that legitimate governments are the evolved forms of crime syndicates. They no longer need to worry about keeping the people under them inline and thus have gone to war with other larger syndicates/states.
Some also say that a sate is different from a gang because it does not break the law. This however is not a legitimate argument. The state after all, makes the law. Of course the sate follows the laws and does not break them but who’s to say that those laws are correct and that other laws are not? In feudal Japan for example a person could be struck down at anytime simply for disrespecting a samurai. This was a legitimate government the highest order of that nation acting in a way that would normally be characterized as criminal. But they were not criminal they were the law then, just as the police are the law now. So then is that what makes an organization a legitimate government, the ability to keep its power in check and act humanely? In fact however they are what defines humane. So not even that is a legitimate argument.
And then to say that a legitimate government does “good things” instead of “bad things” is very similar to that. who says that things are or are not bad? the answer: the sate that happens to be above. The one organization that could keep the most people under its control as opposed to the others.