I think most libertarians would agree with the idea that a government should be kept as small as possible while still being able to protect property rights. They're generally capitalists as well, and the primary drivers there are individual choice and property rights.
For one, I never said I myself am libertarian or anarchist.
Your logic here seems circular, but maybe I just misunderstood. It seems reasonable to me that someone who is libertarian and accepts the need for a state but wants it limited to only, or primarily, protecting property rights would admit that its fine to have a government enforce things they like.
If someone takes issue with having a government at all they're left with anarchism as the only choice. That's all well and good, people can have the opinion that a state is never justified. That doesn't mean libertarians can't believe in a form of government with whatever limitations they deem reasonable or worth the risk, though.
'If I break the law the government enforces the law' implies 'I should be able to break the law with no consequence' implies 'libertarianism is anarchist'.
Sure, but where are you getting these quotes and what is the context you plucked them out of?
A libertarian would not argue that laws can be broken without consequence. They would argue what laws should exist and where the governments authority begins and ends, but that is a very different conversation.
An anarchist would argue that laws and governments shouldn't exist, period. They therefore wouldn't argue that laws can be broken without consequence, they would take issue with the presumption that laws should exist in the first place.
"You can't force anyone to do anything" and "This bit of property belongs to me, you need to pay me for access to it" are not logically compatible.