I think there are passages in Proudhon that read like minarchism. But there are just as many others if not more that don't. Whatever Larry Gambone says (I see that's where you've been taking your Proudhon quotes from, which is I guess why you never give decent references), there is certainly inconsistency - or at least, a greater degree of complexity than I think you are willing or able to accept, in Proudhon's work. But then who isn't inconsistent? As I said, it's not hard to find quotes in Proudhon that are against anarchism or that support property (in the full-blown sense). That doesn't mean that he was never an anarchist. 

I think 'On the general idea of the revolution in the 19th century' has his fullest discussion of the state and of his version of an anarchist society. It's definitely worth reading, and is widely available in english (though unfortunately I don't think it's on the net). 

In Section IV (On the principle of authority) you can find for example:

"We conclude without fear that the revolutionary formula should not be direct legislation, nor direct government, nor simplified government; it is no more government."

"Neither monarchy, nor aristocracy, nor even democracy, where this third term implies some or other government acting in the name of the people and calling itself the people. No authority, no government, even of the people: there is the revolution."

And there's plenty more in that vein. 

'What Is Property', which is on the net, is not as clear but he does also call all forms of government illegitimate there.