it seems to say as long as it’s voluntary it’s okay which is like saying if someone is being treated like dirt but it’s voluntary that’s fine
libertarianism is a theory of the justifiable use of force, if its is voluntary its not justifiable to use force to change it. But it may make some people somewhere upset. is that fine? if by fine you mean its possible for someone to raise an objection, or considers it imperfect then you will find very little in the world that is fine.
So if someone is being treated like dirt, it might not be fine but it is libertarian. This is not a problem for libertarians; the problem for libertarians is how to make the world better to their own eyes through voluntary means. Left-libertarianism could have some meaning for me, if it meant people that strategies and embarked on projects to reform the world in ways compatible with libertarianism. Then at least it would make as much sense as Engineer-Libertianism, who are engineers that go about their engineering work without violating libertarianism, or watermeloneating-libertarianism which is people who enjoy watermelons and despite their love of watermelons will not violate libertarianism to get them.
These hyphonations may be ridiculous; this is no less true for LEFT and RIGHT. It is entirely reasonable to have a strong identity such that you consider yourself and advertise to others that you are: watermelonloving, one with a passionate vocation for engineering, or culturally of the left, or a libertine or whatever…
You don’t need to combine these other things that you are with your libertarianism. They don’t speak to your libertarianism or modify it