This discussion is getting out of hand here, we can argue about all the details of anarchistic vs. democratic societies, but you will never be convinced based on them alone, and obviously in many cases we'd be talking about hypothetical scenarios, because any and all examples of stateless societies (Somalia doesn't really count due to other governments' involvement) are from the past, before there even were terrorist attacks.
I think not if we take as crucial the factor of the lack of state violence monopoly on a given territory, with this - there are actual examples right now and on average don't look all that encouraging - some areas of certain Mexican states, Russian province, Brasilian favelas, "The Red Corridor" in India. In those places we ussually see that the vacuum is quickly filled not with self governing, mutually respectful societies of gun owning individuals, but with the reign of even worse thugs than the ones who had left.
The reason why I think the Government = Mafia comparison is strained, is that no Mafia in the world ever lets its protectees evaluate its service or have any say in how to allocate resources at hand, and step down, if judged poorly in supplying safety and predictability to the citizens. In well working democracies the ass of the guys in charge isn't conjoined with their "chair", in Mafias it is. Government is just a tool, not an actor by itself, the actual actors are easily changable and an individual has a chance of becoming one of them.
A nicer example of a society close to anarchy is Christiania, but altough I'm not entirely sure now, I think there probably still is the subtle hand of Gov over them regarding law enforcement when things get hot - I suppose if they find a corpse in the back street, Kopenhagen PD doesn't let the hippie detectives carry on the investigation.
And wait, why all of the sudden is Somalia not an example here ? Yes, since a couple of years the Ethiopian and African Union soldiers have been meddling in their affairs, but before - the conditions for an anarchic society were met ( unless you want to go Libman and say that "if they have teocratic-tribal militias fighting each other then it's still a socialist hellhole" ),and I guess particularly in Puntland they still are. You guys seem to use Somalia only when it's convenient to do so.
Also, I think it's innacurate to suggest that traditional stateless societies are free in the sense you allude to. They may be free as peoples, as in "not enslaved", but the individual inside doesn't have much degree of freedom, it's not like when the Elders Council has voted a decision in something that concerns you, you can say "I'll take a second opinion", violence still governs those societies, it's just that it's implicit, veiled in sacredness and customs, "love it or leave", only that leaving will usually amount to dying in the wild, unless you're lucky that another tribe accepts you into their own coercive collective. And waring is often just a normal part of life, like in
Yanomamo where historically 1/3 of males died in combat.
Are we talking about standards like USB or safety standards?
Safety. If you have a coal mine owner that is the most significant employer in town, who has a steady supply of fresh workers, why would he have any reason to employ any safety standards in the mine ? The workers as individual bargainers don't have much power and not much choice if they want to eat the next meal, in the worst case - should one die, there will still be a dozen to fill his place, in similar working conditions. The worst example I can think from the perspective of an unskilled employee is an authoritarian, non - democratic
and pro Big Bussiness government, like the Chinese one, in such case you're just screwed.
My answer to all these things is the same -- do you really think monopolies can do a better job than what free competition can produce? You are questioning the ability of people to know which private intelligence agencies are crappy, before shit hits the fan. I suppose you are correct in assuming that one could start a shitty agency, get a couple of unknowing customers who then die because of the agency. But don't you think this kind of news will spread fast? Do you really think businesses like this stay in business for long? Since this worries you, I assume several other people would be worried too, which means there is demand for a business that reports on various intelligence agencies.
How is that not hardcore utilitarian ? What you're saying here is that it's ok if a number of "foundation sacrifices" happpens on the way to the new order of things.
And besides, one more technicality thing - the intelligence agencies would have to have agents operating outside the country, to discern a threat before it takes formidable shape. The image of dozens of homeowners associations maintainning agents in the Middle East and other places smells somewhat surreal. Again, I think people will just mostly let it go, hoping that no attack will ever happen to them particularly, which is why its chances of actually happening rise.
Government has a handufl of reasons to put effort into security - foremost, it's just logical that a succesfull attack from outside forces invites even more of them. No government wants to appear weak, and no government wants to fall prey to another one ( or any other informal, military force ). Also, if all else fails, the want to keep you alive to munch off you, dead people don't create wealth.