Umm, no. Nozick made arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia that a least a minimal state would (re-)emerge. Not everyone has found his arguments persuasive.
And also, what you are calling government, isn't what everyone else calls government. That's why I gave you those references. You could find out what people mean by it. For example, look at footnote 1 in the following paper:
/Do Pessimistic Assumptions about Human Behavior Justify Government?/
-- Benjamin Powell and Christopher Coyne
Some consider that a polycentric legal order is not "government" because it is not a monopoly coercive force, at first cut. I gave you a link to the Barnett text for more discussion of polycentric legal order. But even with a few little examples you could cook up yourself, you would find that what you are casually calling "government" in these re-emergence cases, really isn't what the common person means when they say "the guvmint ought to do such and such." There is a critical difference.
The magic pixy dust is believing the guvmint can produce something for $5 that takes private industry $50. That magic pixy dust is believing that guvmint can actually solve social "problems," and even more outrageous, do it "fairly."
Coolidge said something like "a peoples problems are not eliminated by off-loading them to guvmint." He was right.
In any case, the /Pessimistic Assumptions/ paper linked above assumes bad behavior, not the magic behavior you refer too. This is endemic in the literature. The magic is between your ears.
The evidence shows the opposite.