There are tons of books on this subject that all point to a voluntary society that is fully functional.
The problem is that our states are programming everyone to believe that they can't work, and implant images in everything from textbooks to movies that equate anarchy to violent chaos.
The problem is indoctrination, not lack of ability.
Stop the indoctrination and we can give you a resounding YES to your question.
Sure, there are tons of books that can describe a society like that. There are tons of books that describe fascist societies, communist societies, etc that are fully functional as well. But, they are just books. I can go get a Ph.D in political science and write a book in which our society is ruled by a governing council of carrots, celery, and cabbage that would be fully functional too.
If you apply a little logical thought to my vegetable ruled territory, you would see that in reality, it wouldn't work and it is utter bullshit. A voluntary society is much the same way.
Likewise, a fully functional society doesn't mean it will be more effective at governing than a democracy.
It's a matter of perspective. Are states indoctrinating people to believe that anarchy equals violent chaos? Maybe, maybe not.
How many examples of anarchy in modern times have been successful? Hell, even in ancient times when we weren't as enlightened, anarchy was still bullshit.
The problem is not indoctrination. The problem is a resounding amount of the population would never even entertain the thought of anarchism - violent or not.
It's funny to me that a large portion of the people who are promoting these alternative forms of government (I'm not saying you in particular because I don't know you) would get fucked up the ass so fast and left for dead if we lived in an anarchist society.
Am I implying that an anarchistic society would lead to violence? Is this due to my indoctrination?
Or...
Is it a realistic and logical assessment?
Are you the type to say, "Well, There may be no real evidence that an anarchist society would be violent because there really hasn't been a true anarchist society in modern times. Therefore, let's give it a shot and see how it goes?"
Yep. Fully-controlled statism is a bad, bad Idea. Anarchy is the exact opposite end of that spectrum, which you have been conditioned to fear... But imagine for a second that you weren't conditioned to fear it... Wouldn't the opposite of such a horrible thing be worth exploring?
Well, no, I have not been conditioned to fear it. I have done quite a bit of research on alternative forms of government, and unlike a lot of people who promote anarchism, I view it in a comparative perspective. If I had a choice of a theoretically perfect anarchist society vs the democracy we live in right now, I would choose the democracy every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Extreme anything is usually bad. Anarchism is at the extreme end of the spectrum.
If there's one thing I have learned through all my studies, especially in the area of post-war European politics, is that people like to talk big until shit hits the fan.
See, it's easy to stand back and say, "Yea, democracy sucks. We should embrace Anarchism because of point #1, point #2, etc" But it's just futile because if you are living anywhere close to the reality of the remaining (i.e majority) of the population, you will know full well that this isn't a possibility, especially in our lifetime.
It's a lot harder examine our democratic system as it is and say, "Ok. There are parts of our democracy that are broken. Here are some potential changes that are in the realm of possibility that we can change"
When you argue about theoretical forms of government, you can always loop around and just keep on arguing details and other "ideas". But, it's futile.
