Yes, but more to the point it is the anarco-capitalist position. Libertarian thought is WAY more broad.

The question Anon is asking are good ones. The simple answer is if need is really present and incentives align people acting in their own interests usually see it and work together. Free markets only work when people voluntarily co-operate. I don't have examples handy but there are plenty of standards bodies that have sprung up organically. Even though we have a state that is supposedly supposed to solve so many problems we still see many examples of things NOT being standardized.

The most common anarchist idea to fulfill many of the governance functions listed is insurance. Insurance already does this in many fields over the top of governments. Lets look at medial for example.

Doctors have malpractice insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits destroying their businesses if they make a mistake. These insurance companies have requirements that they enforce on their customers. Doctors and their practices are required to stay up to date on training. Consumers today depend on many privately run associations and things like that to validate a doctor. The status quo is not perfect but it is far from being fully centrally managed and I'd say there is a pretty good pattern to suggest it could operate just fine without a state. Maybe better.

The FDA has a pretty terrible track record for example. Its a monopoly. There are privately run institutions that test drugs and both approve drugs that help faster and have recommended against using drugs that are less safe before the FDA. You could still have an FDA but if it didn't have monopoly power to ban things people would have more choice to trust other institutions or the FDA. They could make determinations using their own risk tolerance.

If you are interested in this topic I would recommend Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy: Robert P. Murphy, Robert Vroman, Hans-Hermann Hoppe