-------
Just wanted to offer a clarification. Before the Libertarian Party existed, there was libertarianism. But many libertarians do not feel represented by the LP. There are libertarians that are "cultural conservatives" who understand and agree with the need for natural order and morality. They believe that it is the *government* that has undermined the authority of the family, for example. Murray Rothbard is a good example of a libertarian that rejected the countercultural-left--he criticized a lot of juvenile libertarians for making libertarianism nothing more than "free" drugs and sex, for instance. Another good libertarian who is pro-family (pro-natural order) is Hans-Hermann Hoppe. In the Hoppean sense, I consider myself both a conservative and a libertarian.
Anyway, the example of the Republican Party and calling oneself a republican needs some clarification or fine-tuning. Suppose a party comes along and calls itself the "Conservative Party." (I know they have one in NY but that's not what I'm talking about here). Suppose that "Conservative Party" then takes un-conservative positions. Does that mean I can't call myself a conservative, just because they came along and tainted the label? That's pretty much the case with small-l libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.
Then what you are describing is a life-style. I have yet to see one of these threads that various small "l", never a big "L", libertarian do not invariably decry everyone else's lack of "understanding" of what it means. They then go on and contradict each other in every post. If the concept is not definable then there is no way to make a case for a governing model based on it,. The only clear consensus that seems to emerge from those libertarians on this site seems to be complete disregard for the realities of any given society in which they find themselves. In this country there are very few constraints on an individual that does not share the values of the community around him however; many have an almost pathological need for that community to recognize his perceived "right" to thumb his nose at those around him.
There is no conservative party. So we will cross that bridge, when we reach it. But under your set of parameters, I don't believe anyone has to agree with their political party on each and every issue. I'd say 75% or better would be a nice round figure to apply in this case. Now, if there was a true 'conservative party', I don't believe it would move away from its basic conservative agenda. Therefore, I would have no worries about straying from the party line. The same goes for the real world of Republican Party politics. The problem arises, when you apply these standards to the Libertarian Party. There appears to be no viable substance there and that means we have a huge gulf in what defines libertarianism and what policy agenda constitutes, the Libertarian Party.
In my book, you can belong to the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, tyhe Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, the Constitution Party or a bunch of lesser known third parties. That's how I look at politics and that's how a majority of American's view politics. Some people don't associate themselves with any political party. I call those people independents. Under that criteria, any individual can then choose to define their political positions, without fear of criticism from hardline political types, like me. Frankly, all this political labeling, drives me up a wall sometimes and I balme it on the political fringers.