With absolute anarchy? No, likely not.

With very minimal government to ensure that contracts are upheld, and that no one can violate the personhood or property of another? Likely, yes.

In our current society, many bad behaviors are incentivized by government charity, regulations, and laws. This causes people to engage in bad behaviors as they do not receive the recompense for their actions.

The problem is that unless Jesus comes back to earth, we are going to have to deal with many of the unfortunate things you mentioned - teen pregnancy, drug usage, poverty, questionable TV content, unemployment and so on. But if we can remove government incentivization of activities and let morality rule the day (by proving the correlation between bad behaviors and bad results), many of these objectionable things can be mitigated.

For example, if there is a smaller safety net that the government controls, people will likely take more precautions in their life to ensure they do not go broke and have nowhere to turn to. Likewise, poverty in America is the same way: Johnson started the War on Poverty in the mid-60s, yet today our unemployment and poverty metrics are no better than they were 50 years ago, and income inequality has gone up not down. Such statistics should be a repudiation of government attempts to assuade the populace into doing, acting, feeling, believing or behaving the way government desires it to go.

Currently, more federal tax dollars are spent being transferred from one person to another via subsidies, tax credits, welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid than all other federal spending combined. Yet despite this, we are arguably worse off than we were with less and less monies being transferred from one part of society to the other.

Therefore, in my view, removing government assistance is the most desirable option. With the onus being on individuals, they can better regulate and adhere to their moral standards and concience as opposed to the body politic, which is well meaning but has a horrible track record in practical laws and amendments benefitting those in poverty.

Let me give some examples:

• We have a social security system that requires 12.4% of all dollars earned at a job be rendered unto the system. 8.4% is paid by the employee, 4.0% is paid by the company. This security net does not accrue real interest, but instead is returned at a rate of 2.32% APR which is generated by taxing the populace, as the government does not invest the money. Without this said net, every wage earner in America could earn more money at their job or have a much larger retirement due to compound interest of actual investment programs.
• Medicare payments are currently set at $7,500 USD per enrollee per year. This is the cost of the system divided by the number of people on the system at this current time. Comparatively, private insurance programs average $4,900. If such a medical safety net did not exist, the body politic would save approximately $2,600 USD per enrollee even if these people were given private plans. Better yet, if government de-regulated the system that is unbelievably broken, shoddy, and a disservice for Americans, costs per enrollee would likely plummet even further to $2,000 - $3,000 USD per person as competition would be systemic in a truly free market system.
• School costs in America's socialized system are raising above and beyond inflation, whilst educational standards have stagnated since the 1970's. We can place blame on many places - the NEA, the administration system, the way schools are districted, the parents, ect. At any rate, the monopolization of our schools has been (in my mind) an utter failure. Comparatively, metrics in private schools vastly outclass that of their public peers - despite costing a fraction per student. I could cite systems like Cornerstone in Detroit that take the same poverty-striken kids in the most urban areas, and turn them into some of the nation's most exemplary students at a cost that is much less than public schools. One could cite the national averages of private vs. public care and know that even if we were to offer vouchers to every student, we would likely save an average of $2,000 USD per student per year and likely see ACT/SAT scores improve between 15-20%.
• Finally, we could look at regulatory and tax structures in America compared to OECD nations around the world to know that our government continues to impose new standards and restrictions on private enterprise during a time when many nations are removing barriers, and freeing up businesses to compete against eachother, and ensure said countries have a decent manufacturing base as well as their service sectors. America continues to make it harder to hire, thus jobs are driven overseas, or into other states. One can examine this trend in job creation in states like Texas, North Dakota and other very business-friendly states versus those that have significant tax burdens and regulatory structures like California and Illinois. For example in the past three years, 50% of all American job creation belongs to one, and only one state. I am sure you know which state it is, and we all know that this said state has made significant strides to remove restrictions to businesses, and spur competition. Additionally, we can correlate GINI coefficients with economic freedoms in America and come to the realilization that more economic freedoms have actually yielded less disparity and not more. For example, the smallest margins in income disparity are very free states such as Vermont, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Utah and Alaska, while the worst state is your state of New York. 

These are just a few points. For social issues, one could note that the decriminalization of all drugs in portugal, along with a substence abuse treatment plan has yielded spectacular results for hard drug users. In just 5 years, hard drug usage has dropped between 60-80% among all hard drugs. Yet again, its repudiation that greater government control over peoples lives - both economic and personal - yield positive results for the nation. That is why I believe that less government is better. I am not an anarchist, as I do strongly believe that there must be a system of mediation between two parties to discern contracts and ensure the protection of life and property. However, time and time again, we see that the most beneficial system is that of personal, not public, responsibility - the greater we take responsibility in our own lives, the better we develop and provide a better world to live in.

Ah, but you assume that success of socialized programs is a repudiation if the same said countries had a free-market system for the same social services or economies. Problem is, we do not know the answer to that in said European countries. Furthermore, we assume that said systems can sustain themselves indefinitely which may or may not be the case - given the volatility in Europe, one may wonder if said levels of social services will last the next 20, 30, or 40 years.

The issue with the argument is that its impossible to show that the European system is even optimal for European societies. One could look at examples of deregulation in very socialist European countries as proofs that there may be positive results in degrulation and freer markets. For example, the Dutch have arguably the most free job market in Europe and is cited to be generally as free as the United States. The result? One of the lowest rates of unemployment in Europe. Likewise, the lowest unemployment rate in Europe comes from the most economically free country in Europe - Switzerland. Take the time to look up economic freedom on Heritage's Index to see how European countries stack up. You'll be surprised.

Ah, but you assume that success of socialized programs is a repudiation if the same said countries had a free-market system for the same social services or economies. Problem is, we do not know the answer to that in said European countries. Furthermore, we assume that said systems can sustain themselves indefinitely which may or may not be the case - given the volatility in Europe, one may wonder if said levels of social services will last the next 20, 30, or 40 years.

The issue with the argument is that its impossible to show that the European system is even optimal for European societies. One could look at examples of deregulation in very socialist European countries as proofs that there may be positive results in degrulation and freer markets. For example, the Dutch have arguably the most free job market in Europe and is cited to be generally as free as the United States. The result? One of the lowest rates of unemployment in Europe. Likewise, the lowest unemployment rate in Europe comes from the most economically free country in Europe - Switzerland. Take the time to look up economic freedom on Heritage's Index to see how European countries stack up. You'll be surprised.

You know, a free market has YET to be proven to work in the benefit of society as well, in more ways than just economically. Capitalism failed miserably over in the 80s (funny, around the time communism also started to fail, correlation?) , and lo' and behold, increasing the debt by 3 trillion got it out. This was under Reagan by the way, the greatest de-regualtor and all saved the US major downfall by spending huge amounts of money. After all, there is zero difference between building nukes and roads when it comes to the actual flow of money.

Furthermore I can write you a nice long paper about what a failure Americanism is. It is is as much failed Capitalism as Communism is failed Socialism. I very rarely see the best for cheapest prevail. I see the company that gets the best advertisements and spends the most money on psycholigist research prevail, even if their product is worse and costlier. As another example of business fuck ups, the nuclear reactor problem in Japan happened because of deregulation and bad business.

Basically, I agree that government is a piece of shit, however businesses are far lower than shit and that impresses me.

My friend, America hasn't had actual Capitalism in decades.  We've had Corporatism.  Captialism didn't fail us, we failed Capitalism.