I tend to agree with you Arkh. The core "macro" issue involved, is degree of centralization of power. An individual who has in hands the means to mount a credible defense of himself and his property by definition has more individual power than a person who has none. The person without any credible means of defending himself and must rely solely on others by definition has less power, however the groups who administer protection in his region by definition have more.

On the micro level, it may not see like a big deal to society if one particular person has slightly more or slightly less power - however on a macro scale, the aggregate increase of relative power held by individuals as opposed to a centralized authority is quite great and has a large effect on the balance of power in a society.

If you were to quantify a value called "protection" that represented to total level of protection from criminal harm in a segment of society, a society where a substantial amount of that protection comes from the grassroots citizenry will have a far more stable amount of "protection" over time. Wheres in a society where all of the protection stems from a single centralized authority , the amount of protection provided will by nature have larger swings in the amount provided.

Swings in the quality of the centralized authority will have a much larger effect in the absence of grassroots protection. Corruption, funding, competence, politics and other factors can greatly effect the amount of protection provided by a centralized authority with grave consequences if grassroots protection is not available to fill in the gaps left by an incompetent or corrupt centralized authority.

One good example of this is Mexico. The Mexican situation can be compared to the Old West in the USA in many ways. One telling difference however, was that in the USA the citizens could and would arm themselves. It was even a common occurrence for the citizens to be pressed into temporary "posse" or militia duty by law enforcement when organized criminal elements needed dealt with.

Citizenry owning weapons did not "solve" the problem of organized crime and violent gangs, but it did attenuate their effect on society at large. Whereas in Mexico, in the absence of ever-present competent police forces, the citizenry is completely at the mercy of organized crime.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)