Hitler also called his party socialist (maybe even believed in that himself), yet you'd find it hard to find people who agrees on that

Depends on the scale of it, but in an extreme libertarian view, it would not. It would say the natural order of things would play out and that micro-society would end up in a balance where workers get enough of what they want and the corporation would get enough of what they want. No state or body should get involved unless one side involved them or they were requested in as a mediator. And that libertarian would expect that it essentially, eventually, "sorts itself out".

Though, since extremes of all social ideologies are completely naive to human nature, you'd find the majority of libertarianism ideas would be focused on protecting freedoms which is often more sensibly done with a government, but one that listens and is not corrupted or swayed by either side.

It's interesting as this kind of thing can see libertarians fight each other over contradiction—the concept of a free market, for example. But I think the majority of them are more or less a bunch of Adam Smiths and his views were very libertarian while also sanely criticising libertarianism and where it does not work or does need to involvement of state or some form of authority, essentially to save people from themselves.

There was some unusual person here the other day claiming to be pro anarchy but had views starkly opposing libertarian ones... They seemed to be all for not being told what to do, but their concern for liberty didn't seem to extend beyond themselves. My assumption would be that in a state of anarchy, they'd quickly be taking everything off everyone, then trying to establish an authority to try ensure other people didn't take their stuff. Sitting in a beautiful colonial mansion, exercising their freedom to own other people, thinking how cool anarchy ended up being for them, while blissfully unaware of the pitchforks and torches marching onto their property to the beat of anarchist chants.

No. While it's a spectrum, much of that spectrum is actually more for equal distribution in society and opposed to ideas like private ownership and capitalism, to a degree, since these unequally take away access or privilege for some and not for others. Thus, not everyone has the same liberties because one part of society has blocked or encroached another part.

The fundamental idea is not to gain something, rather it's not to lose anything,

The exception to this is the somewhat unique and new right-wing libertarian branches that appeared in the US which are sort of more from a minarchism idea, so it's more focused on not being regulated or controlled by a state. This is where free market concepts really took off, for example. The traditional libertarian views which, being much more mature and prevalent in the rest of the world, encompass society as much and originates from the left with stances of socialism, social balance, and of course the that any government is in service to the people and not an authority over them. This is why they are more for protecting liberty, rather than using it, and a state's role is this. Basically, don't let arseholes get loose and shit on everyone, because they will.