One of the assertions that distinguishes my political viewpoint from most others is my claim that scarcity is equal to power.
If Eddie Engineer is the only engineer willing to come to your town and work make your machines work...Eddie has as much power as he wants to use. If Vernon Villain comes to town with his gun, he may seem to have more power than Eddie. However, that's only true if Vernon is the only guy in town with a gun. If there are more guns than just Vernon's, then the others will protect Eddie as being important for their self-interest.
How much power a given entity has (Water company, Bank, Military) is roughly exclusively determined by how scarce their abilities are. If there's only one water source in town, whoever controls it has a lot of power...and control is frequently trumped by violence, thus making it appear that violence is the key. However, if there are 3, 4, or 20 water sources in town...it becomes awful hard even for violence to make a difference in water control. Without real scarcity, violence doesn't win. Similarly...if there are 20 different armed militias in town... only the insane ones are shooting anyone...and they're likely to be eliminated. Rather, no single group has any real power, because there's no scarcity.
In real life, through the study of recent economic history, most scarcity is not scarcity of physical resources, but rather scarcity of mental resources. Can you find someone who can solve the problem you have? How many folks can (in my case) effectively teach your team of programmers how to use web services in Java (Practice: easy, Theory: less so). How many folks can effectively lead a team of programmers to create something useful in a reasonable period of time. (Not enough). What other choices do you have than finding such a person? (Not too many.)
The scarcity angle, though, brings up a real issue for political analysis. The issue is: where is the scarcity.
Claim #1: Generating Scarcity is the political goal of all businesses. If you can generate scarcity, you win...and if you can't you lose...and almost the only way to generate long term scarcity is through government intervention. Alternatively, you can monoplolize scarce resources (brains) but it's a leaky job, and it ends up sending all of your profits to the scarce resources.
Claim #2: Political power is itself allocated itself according to scarcity. Hence, in the modern wealthy world of general lack of scarcity...the idea of concentrating political power is between kinda tricky and impossible. Monarchism wishes are silly.
Claim #3: Given how much scarcity is generated in the political world, one has to assume that power is FAR more concentrated than we currently want to believe. Power is exercised to generate large scarcity.
Claim #4: Larger polities (USA vs. Denmark or Swiss Canton) are currently only fictionally democratic. Scarcity of Access. The ability to influence policy is not meaningfully democratic in any sense, nor can it be, given widely varying opinions.