[flagged]
Not a single one of those things are librarian values.
That's a completely different thing than e.g. giving them the ability to sue you for not providing something you never promised to provide.
There are many ideologies that believe in limitations on government regulation, and they're not all the same. A libertarian is not going to be on board with an anarcho-communist's desire to abolish private property, or a strict constitutionalist's willingness to have state and local governments set price controls. Whether a private monopolist/cartel is regarded as a form of government is a rather important practical distinction.
And hardly anyone is a pure anarchist -- how many people intend murder to be legal? So one way or another it's all about the details. And I'm assuming you're not a proponent of the opposite. Totalitarianism is the worst form of government including all of the others.
If you were really thinking about whether or not to take Libertarians seriously then you might take some lessons from the book The Righteous Mind that points out moral axes and notes that liberals tend to focus on care and harm, conservatives focus most on fairness and cheating, and libertarians with their focus on liberty are just behind both of those. It might also be interesting to consider the content of Libertarian meetings which are often dominated by discussion of cannabis legalization, right to repair, and arguments for a universal basic income.
It's the sort of thing that seems like it would serve some important function and then you try to imagine what would change if they didn't exist and it's hard to come up with anything serious.
Meanwhile it's a cause to charge you with a crime even if you harmed no one in any way, which is exactly the sort of thing that libertarians oppose, so it's entirely consistent that the audience would oppose it.
The market is willing to provide car service to people in wheelchairs, for a particular price. A lot of people in wheelchairs can't afford that price. The law is trying to create a subsidy.
In principle the people who want the subsidy should be the ones paying for it. If you think subsidizing this is a good idea then you give your money to a charity, they use the money to subsidize the service, and then the market provides the service because somebody is paying for it.
You can also decide you don't want to be a libertarian and instead you want the government to subsidize the service out of tax revenue. Libertarians don't like this, because now you're taking money from the people who didn't agree to subsidize it without their consent. But also, politicians don't like this, because it's spending tax money and they'd prefer to spend that on their cronies in some government-adjacent industry.
So what politicians do instead is pass it as an unfunded mandate on whatever industry. This is still a tax, but now it's not a tax on e.g. rich people, it's a tax on other ride sharing customers and drivers. Who tend not to be rich people, because rich people have their own cars or private limousines or planes. Then we get a covert tax on the poor so that the overt tax money can go to defense contractors and other politically-connected corporations. It's at this point that you start to wonder if the libertarians might have been onto something.
The libertarian ideal is a prodigiously litigious society where liability is the main driver of regulation.