Not anarchist. There's another way, as I see it. If you put a liberal, a conservative, a Christian, a follower of radical Islam, an atheist, a Buddhist and a paganist on a desert island together, they could find a way to work things out, and not step on each others toes.
Each does whatever they like, so long as they do no harm to anyone else. Where the least common ground exists, interactions are polite and restrained (to the mathematical extreme of minimizing any information transfer at all, if zero common ground exists); where greater common ground exists, speech and action can be more unrestrained.
If harm is done, then the harm itself is the issue. Hyperbolic example, to make it super clear: it's perfectly fine to shout 'fire' in a crowded building; however, if you cause harm you're on the hook. Not because you shouted "fire", but because you (one way or another, the means is irrelevant) caused people to be trampled.
The difference between that and the similiar position stated earlier is small, but I think there's a bright line: whether the speech is restricted, or the doing of harm is restricted. It's a trivial difference at face value, but the logical derivations are very different.
If one of the desert island castaways attempts to do harm to another, the rest of them might naturally band together to prevent and reconcile it. That's where I see government involved: the banding together, to prevent and reconcile harm done.
In that way, morality is untouched. No one inflicts their views on anyone else. Total ignorance of all moral hierarchies is preserved. Government says nothing about what may or may not be said. The only view inflicted on anyone is the minimum precept, 'do no harm to others'.