The idea of government being parasitic is all the rage in some circles. Quite how it has got to this, I've no clue, but I suspect it has something to do with a confusion in the definitions of 'liberty' and 'anarchy,' and a stasis in the structure of government to reflect the meaning of something like an electorate. In frustration, many reach out for the word 'mobilize,' in their attempts to rectify a confusion they might sometimes think of as 'cognitive dissonance' in others. Which is an expression form the science of mind that supposes that when two or more beliefs are in conflict, a mind cleaves to the more palatable belief at the expense of less palatable beliefs. And here, amongst 'the mobilized' the argument is that the less palatable beliefs might indeed reflect a more accurate appraisal of the circumstance, and ignoring them may be both perilous and stupid. So the word 'mobilize' in this context, I'd argue, is better understood as a 'yearning for power over the minds of others.'
You can try to think of it fruitfully as a 'yearning for influence over the
minds of others.' This has a sort of gentle and rational flavor, a tutti-frutti
ice cream from the Barnes and Noble, or is it Baskin and Robbins, my own
preference would be a second hand bookshop that serves a vanilla ice cream cone
called 'fetishism' and for the more pedantic moments there'd be a vanilla and
toffee crunch ice cream cone called 'Hegel and Marx,' to match the polite
conversations and measured debates on the benefits of sharing. But the
point about structure is that minds are physical things that flow as water does
downhill, so government is better thought of as a dam than some kind of evil
parasite feeding on the genius of a two legged and heavy headed species. And you
have to wonder about 'mobilize.' Probably better to wait, catch the leaks, so
when the dam bursts not everything will be washed away. But that's just me,
waiting for the dew to lift before pillaging Chard.