Libertarianism doesn't fail
In spite of assurances to the contrary, I have never once seen libertarianism/abolitionism/voluntaryism/anarchism fail when used in the real world.
Yes, people frequently fail to use it, but that's their failure. It rests nowhere else.
Libertarianism is a tool. It's always the right tool for the job when you're talking of human interaction-- among individuals or societies. Yes, there are other tools you can use-- none of them are as good and all of which are harmful to individuals.
You wouldn't blame the tool for the failure when people don't use the proper tool when it's offered. It's not the hammer's fault if someone rejects the hammer you offer them and pick up a rock to use instead. That would be silly.
Sure, people could get by using a rock to drive in nails, but a good hammer is going to work better whether or not they use one. Same goes for libertarianism.
You can use archation-- the state/political government-- to create a semblance of a society. But to make the claim that society needs archation is to ignore the fact that society and political government are mutually exclusive.
A society may exist in parallel with a state, but it exists in spite of it, not because of it. Never mistake some expression of statism for a functioning society because it isn't one.
And this brings up a point: maybe giant groups of humans-- what is taken for "society" by most people today, simply can't work for our species. It might be disturbing to consider, but it might still be reality.
You can't keep a single, solitary bee alive, healthy, and functioning-- not as a bee.
Perhaps you similarly can't have a healthy, functioning hive of humans-- this is the level where The State always arises. Would this fact upset you if it were true?