If a "law" weren't enforceable, I wouldn't call it a legal rule. There is a meaningful and legitimate concept of "case law" or "common law" that evolves outside an established legal system or government; I wasn't thinking of those as legal rules. I would take anarcho-libertarianism to oppose any laws--laws per se in the sense of enforceable legal rules--regardless of whether they violate individual rights. I don't see how laws in the sense of enforceable legal rules are consistent with the absence of government. Maybe this is a long way of saying either (a) yes, I'm confused, or at least (b) I don't understand what you're saying.