One cannot be a real libertarian and a Democrat

Alright! First debate on the site! So excited. Okay, before I begin: I am not from US, so I cannot actually be a Democrat per se. But I am a avid follower of US politics, and for the sake of this debate, I will argue that it is possible to left of centre on the political spectrum and call oneself a "Libertarian." ******* My esteemed opponent has challenged me to explain my "conflicting belief system." I explain it thusly: It is not conflicting. Or at least not any more so than his own. Libertarianism, like all ideologies, exists on a spectrum not an iron-clad orthodoxy where all tenants of the school of thought must be accepted in order to qualify as being an adherent. For example: not every democrat (small D) needs to accept that judges should be elected, not every capitalist must think public education is bad (Adam Smith said quite the opposite), not every Christian must live by all the rules in Leviticus, not every monarchist must believe that the king or queen should be a supreme sovereign with unchecked power. In the same way, one can be a Libertarian without adhering to the version of it laid out by Ayn Rand and the rest of her disciples. I believe this is self-evident, because if it were not so, it would be impossible for a Libertarian to be a republican! Republicans for all their talk of smaller government have just as many anti-libertarian ideas as Democrats, albeit in different policy areas. Republicans insist on perpetuating the drug war which denies adults the liberty to use psychoactive substances, they actively promote the restriction of women's liberty to end an unwanted pregnancy, many often support surveillance programs like those revealed in the Snowden leaks, they support the curtailing of the rights of people on trial and even outright denial them to others. Republics venerate the military which is not only the biggest government program but the means that any state suppresses the liberties of its citizens or those of other countries. Yet despite all this, most Libertarians closely associate themselves with the Republican party. Why is that? It is because they are willing to either overlook or accept these contradictions as either acceptable or right and necessary exemptions to the libertarian orthodoxy. Similarly, I believe that Democrats' transgressions against liberty as either acceptable enough to be looked past or the necessary compromises necessary for creating a healthy and stable society while not violating what I see are the central principles of Libertarianism: that people should be allowed to live, speak, love and do what they want without government interference as long as they don't cause direct harm to another person. In general Democrats are very supportive of social libertarian principles and not as much so of economic libertarianism, while vise-versa is true of republicans. I do not relish the idea of living in the supposed golden age of economic libertarianism which was the late 19th century and early 20th. Private enterprise may have had almost perfect liberty but it also created toxic fogs in London that literally killed people. So just as I imagine my opponent will argue that creating a military is one of the legitimate jobs of the state, I argue that the regulation of large-scale private enterprise is just as vital a function of a government. So in summary: I put forward to the voters that being a Democrat is not more conflicting for a Libertarian than being a Republican as being either requires compromises of the ideology's orthodoxy. But making those compromises does not disqualify one from being a libertarian.