I'm fairly certain I own BP stock, through various mutual funds. I haven't tried to figure out the amount, but it's probably non-trivial given their large market cap. Most people with a large 401k probably do. However, although I don't want to demonize BP, I certainly don't want to excuse them just because investors might be hurt.
As for Goldwater vs Paul, the only thing I can find that they disagree on is the point(s) at which an unborn child gets rights. If only allowing the answer of "birth" is the litmus test, then the bar is set pretty high for libertarianism.
That's not the only thing, but it's enough. Government intervention to put religion and a lump of cells above the bodily autonomy of women is VERY authoritarian.
Now if the issue was he wanted to just reduce the scope of department X rather than disband it entirely, that is pretty small. It's all about how much power the government has over you.
The merit of the law doesn't even matter. For example a prohibition on killing people outside of self defense has a lot of merit. However if you are for the law you can't be considered an anarchist by definition. At most you could be a libertarian bordering on anarchy. Remember considering something to be wrong and making a law about it are 2 different things. So you can think abortion is wrong and be libertarian or even an anarchist. The definition of those words only has to do with what you would criminalize.