This is going to sound like a self-preservation thing, however I promise you it isn't. This train of thought has been driven purely by the current climate of our cities and the limitations to which we have to work with.

So my question is, do extended periods of peace bring imbalance to the way our world is structured, on an individual ability level? Or are we expected to be motivated by this and revert to the endless cycle of wars and takedowns?

Presently, two of the main areas we develop in this life are attacking/killing/shooting and defending/defence. Under "normal" circumstances, we would see those at the top of the chain with the greatest offensive and defensive abilities, so much so that only another of the same status or rank would be able to bring them down. And vica versa. This can be thought of as Age/Rank/Commitment/Resources (Otherwise known as "Effort") = Available Targets.

This formula isn't present however where extended periods of peace are concerned. Where the number of defensive personnel we can employ, the level of skill they possess and their health are capped, attacking skills can continue to grow. If my understanding of the rules of our world are correct, given enough time anyone can kill anyone, providing they have the appropriate rank or authorisation. Therefore, attacking skills are unlimited in their potential. 

Now let's consider the defensive formula. Cost is one of the properties of this, as is time, however limitation is also present. So regardless of your level of protection, the longer you live the more vulnerable you become. 

Is this considered imbalance? Is it a risk we should accept with extended periods of peace? Or should we be able to maintain the balance of Effort = Available Targets?

Brining the world one step closer to an utopia.  What risk, what balance, what targets? THIS IS the way to live!

I share your though process my friend, but my point is that the longer there is a 'utopia' the higher risk there is to the ones spear heading it. 

Luna hears from afar the concerning thoughts of signore Mezzo. While she listens attentively, she gathers some thoughts of her own and makes them vocal. 

I cant say that peace is considered to be an imbalance in our world, but I do think that it's considered as an absence of conflict and war - from this would arise hostility and... confusion? Maybe? I say confusion because there are those who were embedded into the cycle of wars since the beginning, so maybe they are just used to the violent approach.

I think this quote is useful for this situation right now: 

One person's utopia is another person's dystopian nightmare.

Peace as a utopian concept is an interesting topic to bring up, signore Mezzo. It really is a debatable thing to open up with, but in my personal opinion peace is not an imbalance. Rather, it is a process. In this world, it is impossible that we can actually gain a world in total harmony without any conflict. 

I say impossible because you mentioned correctly that in this life we develop our marksmanship and defence skills. There has to be a purpose for why we are training them, right? Exactly. To defend, to shoot, and to protect.

You bring up vulnerability and level of protection. Why do you bring it up though? Forgive me if I missed what you were trying get at, but I'd love to discuss more about this. Maybe you can provide more clarification on what you're trying to get at?

Giving the options to do one thing or another, does not mean you are meant to do it! With these two hands we can do a million things, but ouf of those millions, we do the ones we think are good for us to be doing in a given frame of time!

JackMezzo, it is enough that you have done your part for the potential existance of an utopia! Everyone else has their own burden to bear. After all, an Utopia is when we, the world as a whole, begin to work as one big team! As long as you've stated your intentions of joining that team, then that is enough. We can only control our own actions and thoughts and that is enough!

For the situation we currently find ourselves in, I think the point you are making is a valid one Mr Mezzo. At the moment we have a whole generation of leaders each with a huge amount of experience. They have had time to develop their skills and their bases of power, and in many ways the balance between them is what causes this peace we are now enjoying. 

In this climate it doesn't seem right that no matter what effort this older generation put in, they can not become more secure against either their rivals or the up-and-comers of our world. 

However the world marches on, and things will not stay like this forever. We will not always have this wealth of experienced leaders walking our streets capable of keeping each other in check. Someday we may find ourselves in a situation where there is just one, or perhaps a closely allied pair of leaders, running this thing of ours. In this situation if we allowed them to build their defences and employ hordes of bodyguards without limit then they would end up accountable to no one. Able to reign without any fear or respect for those younger than them, as their defences would grow faster than anyone could hone their skills enough to become a threat.

So while our current system is not ideal, and is poorly suited to our environment currently, I feel it is still a necessary one to maintain balance not now, but in the long term.   

The unique thing about this life, or any life for that matter is that it is all about perspective. As was reverted too earlier that not everybody likes this peace. Someone, somewhere doesn't like who is in charge, decisions being made, and/or would rather just be killing people. The cycle of power is the same. For this peace to have been accomplished chances are a war or series of take downs occurred and victors filled those empty cities with those they trust. Of course correct me if I am wrong because I am new to these shores but these same people did this and are now in a position where they control more of the country than they don't. Thus peace is established. 

So according to written history and old notebook entries, what typically happens is the following:

1) The birth of so called "rogues." Individuals who are typically relatives and friends of those that the current power structure eliminated in order to gain the power. These people understandably do not want to join and be loyal to their relatives' killers and so they join the ranks, train and make an attempt on the life of the regime's upper structure. This is more about revenge than it is change but if the regime can't bounce back from a big loss then they could crumble. Assuming the shooter(s) is/are successful of course. 

2) The betrayal. Some high ranking people within the regime will want more power and attempt to gain that by removing or attempting to remove other higher ranking people. What I call a betrayal they might call Coup d'état. All about perspective. They may not just want more power but perhaps a change. A lot of times this turns very bloody very fast and by the time it's said and done the regime is basically gone.

3) The most disappointing in my opinion is the regime causes their own demise. The regime has done well to keep it's members happy and suppress their threats. Unfortunately absolute power corrupts absolutely. Eventually a high ranking person is going to make sinful decisions and be damned by the Gods. Now we all know that if someone in upper structure makes one of these decisions the RH and CL are killed by the Gods as a "trial by association." So, no big deal right? it would be like if the rogues killed one CL and a RH, right? The regime should be able to bounce back from that. Problem is, the regime are all friends and so when one starts making sinful decisions and get away with it they often get their friends to do it too. Before you know it, a large portion of regime is involved, they get caught and are damned by the Gods.

I am sure there are other ways but these are the ones I feel we are most familiar with. The point of all this is to remind people that there is no such thing as a utopia. It will never be perfect and someone will always be unhappy with the status quo. So if we're talking imbalance basically the imbalance is people who are in power against those who do not want them in power. At least this is the case when we are talking about this type of peace time. It doesn't change anything in the way our world is structured in my opinion. It just stagnates things for awhile. In my opinion peace-time is welcome because we do not get to see it very often. Often times we are bombarded with wars and killings followed by slander and general discontent. Just take the time to get along with each other... The sad truth is, it will not last forever. 

Thanks for your views, all.

I feel like I'm not being understood correctly in some areas. So just to re-phrase my original point - 

During this era of peace, and as it continues on, every man and woman across the country has the opportunity available to them to build their gun skill to a point it is deadly enough to kill whoever they like. This particular ... "privilege" was previously only available to those who survived wars, were promoted to positions of crew leader and through natural attrition became the most deadly people in the country. 

And so, we found ourselves the typical situation where the leader of an operation, their hands, maybe a few dedicated individuals who made up their Hit Squad, all had the ability to be called upon for war and allocated high profile targets - Ones only they had the skill to kill.

The longer peace goes on, the longer almost everyone has the option available to them to become a killing machine, while those running the show cannot get 'more defended'.

So that was my original point, however Kesey has actually helped me find my perspective on this. This situation, like one where almost nobody can remove powerful elements at the top of the chain, is just another dynamic of this world we have to work with. Thinking of it this way, it actually makes me grateful that everyone has the ability to kill everyone, but anyone rarely does.

It's a credit to the environment we've nurtured, because between a greater risk of death, or being so oppressed you can't do anything, I know where I'd rather be.

Tops stood and listened to various speakers, before he stepped up and said
Mister.. Tops paused, then continued. ..Godfather JackMezzo, I find it an interesting point, that you are raising. Probably one of the key factors to this long reign of peace, that even sees crew leaders step down to continue working for other families, is the fact that a huge chunk of the current leadership is of comparable age. After the last, massive, nation-wide war, so I've heard, there was an big urge for long-lasting peace. And to be honest, I feel very blessed to be living in this peaceful society myself. On the other hand, it surprises me to see it work for such a long time already.

Coming back on what you said, I do disagree with you when you say Tops does some quotation marks gesture in the air
The longer you live the more vulnerable you become
Shouldn't that be.. He looked quite silly doing the gesture again
The longer others live the more vulnerable you become?

Which makes it even more remarkable that this society we live in apparently seems to not be mistrusting groups of people, despite the odds of them being there, being well-trained and being very powerful, are quite high. Indeed, there will be people in lower ranks that in the near future will not be able to fulfil their ambitions, if they do not take violent action. I am not saying they will, but we are coming close to reaching the point where there are no vacancies left for yet another Godfather, Crewleader, or any official role in the existing crews..