Not every form of governance needs to be coercive. Look at Anarcho-Syndicalism as practices in 1930's Spain, or at the management policies of the company Semco in Brazil. Semco is a paeticularly strong example of distributed decision making. The only management structure of the company is a forum of worker's delegates, and each work group elects those delegates on an ad-hoc basis, so if they start becoming authoritarian, then they just get booted back to the rank and file, and another guy is picked. Also, all workers jointly interview and vote on new hires for their work groups, so there is no power concentration with the delegates. The delegates mainly coordinate already-decided matters and facilitate communication between teams. All important / policy matters are voted on by the workers.
With this power structure, the company's annual turnover grew from $4 million per annum, up to $200 million per annum, which proves it works, and it's pretty much a text-book application of Anarcho-Syndicalist ideas. Plus, before the current CEO took over, the previous style of the company was extremely hierarchical, and run almost like a Gulag, where armed guards searched everyone leaving for the day, to check they didn't steal anything. By using generous profit-sharing, they aligned the worker's interests with the company (and if you steal, you're stealing from yourself and your friends, not just "the company"), and could do away with the elaborate security (showing how a liberal society with equitable economics doesn't need the massive surveillance).
Another thing to remember is that Anarchists promote voluntary membership associations. Don't like the rules the group voted on? Leave and go solo or make your own group. You forgo the benefits and services that group provides, but you're free to go it alone. Current governments do not let you leave (or at least, they own you, as a logical outcome of you being in their turf).