Yes, because however regular their rule became it always originated in the violent subjugation of the peasantry, or in exchange for war service a gift of previously subjugated peasants. It is much easier to see the essence of government in systematic theft the further back you go.
Ultimately it derives from the victory of one over the other of the two basic ways to make a living: the economic way, which is to produce and trade wealth, and the political way, which is to take wealth that’s already been produced. This is accepted by the people at first because they have no choice, but also because government actually does provide a service. It keeps out other would-be marauders. They only do so by monopolizing the marauding themselves, but that’s why they’re called a necessary evil.
Gangsterism and government seem to be antagonists because they are in the same racket. Except when gangsters are providing an actual service, in which case they operate like a business outside the rule of law. But government is like a business sometimes, too, and they do produce needful things that might actually be bought on the free market, only they do so by outlawing competitors and with stolen capital.
The big difference is that government has been afforded the time to grow respectability. The mob is on a simpler plane, akin to early feudal lords minding their manners. You can still see the brutal origins which are hidden in the case of the US, unless you happen to be an Iraqi insurgent or Taliban fighter.
The US Constitution, the Magna Carta, and the civil aspects of God’s law as handed to Moses all attempted to minimize the negative aspects of government by limiting in some manner. Without limits all government reverts to it’s marader roots. Chief Justice Roberts voted in favor of gangster rule with his rejection of the 10th Amendment.