Well as an anarcho-pacifist, let me presage this by saying I'm not moved with or concerned about arguments about feasibility. My belief in Anarcho-Pacifism is based on a moral imperative, and extends from there.
In other words, I myself am personally obligated to behave in an Anarcho-Pacifist manner, as is everyone else. If everyone actually behaved that way, it would be the end of civilization as we know it, which would be great.
Now, I personally believe that if this actually happened, an Anarcho-Pacifist society would be far, far more productive, because from my perspective, the defining feature of free market capitalism is violently-enforced idleness.
Not even getting into the costs of maintaining this force, the most immediate and bizzare fact of society is that we prevent people from working. Unemployment is a result of state violence.
This may seem like an extraordinary claim, but it is on the face of it, extremely true. To use a personal example, I have a skill set that I am willing to teach at well below market rates. What I do require is a place to offer this, a storefront. The recession hit commercial real estate very hard on Long Island, and there were rows upon rows of empty storefronts with "For Rent" signs in place, that attract no money to the owner of that property.
Now, in the purest economic sense, the most productive possibility is for me to use the storefront, so long as I don't damage it, because at least I am working, providing a service, and other people are receiving that service. Even if I do this for free, it's economic activity. The store owner gets nothing, but he gets nothing as it is now.
The only thing that stops me from doing that is that the storefront owner would use armed violence to remove me from the property and if I did that. He has reasons for doing so that are rational in the existing economic system, but compared to an Anarcho-Pacifist one, the net result is most certainly less productive, especially when you factor in ancillary costs of the system, on top of this enforced idleness.
The idea applies to many other things. Many people would prefer to labor in the hope of tips then to deal with enforced unemployment. But an unemployed carpenter cannot simply walk into a carpentry shop and begin helping customers. The laid off miner cannot come in to mine coal (either Cheezy or Traitorfish once posted a great poem about that example), and the factory workers cannot continue to come in and make products, even if he bought the raw material himself. I'm now in Missouri and there is endless arable land out here, but it is all tied up in ownership. The homeless man cannot shelter himself in unused houses, apartments, or rooms. He'd be driven from the premises. But all of this would be more productive then enforced idleness.
Now, as I said before there are many reasonable reasons property owners do this, and it makes an individual sense. These mainly pertain with earning money, which primarily exists as a way to earn the recognition and enforcement of your property claims by the state, against the property claims of others.
Contrary to popular opinion, the origin of the state lies in the use of armed force by one party to achieve it's own desires and enforce it's property claims. In then generalized these property claims, and took on other functions and methods in an effort to legitimize and reduce the cost of enforcing it's claims, and has always reformed by groups asserting new property claims.
From purely cold, economic position, the existence of the state (and other perpetrators of violence) and it's enforcement of property claims has always been a detriment to productivity, and continues to force down productivity in order to ensure their own position.
