"Herschel I. Grossman (1995) and Stergios Skaperdas (2001) both consider mafia as an alternative enforcer of property rights. Using a model with two actors (a self-governing community and mafia) and potential robbers, Skaperdas (2001) shows that in the absence of an enforcer of property rights, mafia can represent a sort of second best solution"

I do agree, that mafia act as a government. But there is still quite a difference to a democratic government. It is more a olygarchy/despotism.

But I believe our roots of government back in the middle ages, when feudals conquered new peasants to profit from them, were very alike. And there might be still characteristics in our institutions from that legacy. People definitely view it that way, when they pay taxes ...

Absolutely agree. Mafia is not a democratic type of government. And even most despotic governments are probably better than the average mafia, for the people they rule. Reason being that you can't rule a big, stable country if you are too tyrannic. Other government-types will compete with you, and even foreign governments will try to take your land and people.

Democratic != good.

Also agreed. However: democratic >= mafia

Since we are venturing into anecdotal territory anyway, let me report that I have yet to meet anyone who can reasonably show that government is nothing else but another form of mafia. "Freedom fighter" vs "terrorist" is however another discussion.

There are people on HN who earnestly believe that "taxation is theft" - note that I am not one of them.

I'd actually be interested to hear how the "taxation is theft" people consider protection money. The mafia is a voluntary association, one can choose to pay protection money or not. From the anarcho-libertarian standpoint there should not be objections.

Well, I guess that if you don't pay up to the mafia then Bad Things(TM) happen and if you don't pay your taxes then Bad Things(TM) happen - except that by definition the latter are "legal".

Note that I don't believe this myself - I'm on the "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" side of the argument but I can see that those on the other side have a stateable case. My main objection is that I've never seen any plausible description of an advanced civil society that doesn't rely on compulsion to pay for things.

An anarcho-capitalist would probably say that one could pay a competing crew or start one oneself, as the landowners in this article did. At any rate, access to power is limited and requires deep pockets or reckless disregard for life. Not a society I'd like to live in.

Eric Hobsbawm wrote Bandits, a nice little volume on organized crime. It's written from a different political angle.