Let’s sum things up a bit.
Libertarianism is an advanced form of freedom that takes individualism about as far as it can go. People can do ‘whatever’ they want, until it ‘impedes’ upon the ‘rights’ of others. These are all vague concepts; so the definition of Libertarianism is very expansive. Actions that are normally illegal in modern society, would be legal in a Libertarian society. You can do whatever drugs you want, unless you harm another. So drugs would be legalized. You can have sex however you want, so most sexual taboos would be legalized. Suicide would be legalized. “As long as it doesn’t harm others”, then it would be morally acceptable in a Libertarian society.
It should be common-sense that a Libertarian society is anti-social.
Thus you cannot be a “Social Libertarian” as it’s a contradictory statement. You can’t be “social” on one hand, and anti-social on the other. It’s kind of like the “Free-Will” debate recently. You can’t merge two contradicting terms together, and then claim it. You are forced to choose, according to the logical paradox inherent within the terms. So which is it, should peoples’ “Rights” be subsumed under “what is best for everybody” (Egalitarianism) or shouldn’t they, and individuals can “do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm others”? In the Moral sense, and religiously, most people know that Libertarianism simply doesn’t work. Laws need to be enacted because average people are simply irresponsible, and quickly abuse leniency. If you allow people to do drugs, then many or most will begin to abuse it. Same with suicide, and sexual debauchery, etc. So you could call it “Moralizing” for a ‘Socialist’ to denounce Libertarianism.
Here’s my personal opinion, since some of you seem to want to know. I’m more of Libertarian, myself. That’s how I was raised. However, the biggest problem of Libertarianism is that it presumes and assumes that most people have some type of personal-responsibility and accountability, which they don’t in fact. You can’t tell a society of ten million people that “it’s okay to do drugs as long as you don’t hurt anybody”, because the implication is that you are still “allowed” to harm yourself. It gets more complex in ‘taboo’ sexual practices. Sure you can say it’s “okay” for people to have sex with whomever they want, but then, do you really want to “allow” sexual immorality to run rampant through your society as-if that’s going to improve or strengthen your society in the long-run? What does common-sense dictate? It’s unhealthy, diseased, (morally) wrong, and in the long-term, will weaken or possibly even destroy, a society.
So, to the OP, I say ‘No’, the two terms cannot be reconciled. You have to choose, to lean one way or another.
Sure it’s easy to be a ‘Libertarian’ as a single-white-male living in Modern decadent Western society.
But once you start knocking women up, and babies and family enter the picture, that “Libertarianism” ends quickly. Family, social-obligations, etc. take over. You are forced to live in a family, a relationship, a tribe, a society. And so moral rules must be imposed. I would call that “Social” at least, and personally that is my abstraction toward “Socialism”. Europeans have a different definition of ‘Socialism’, as do history in general. Old World nations and countries view socialism as ‘inherent’ within their Countries’ upbringing and social indoctrination. Thus, in Finland, your society is Finnish, and you speak Finnish. In Romania, your society is Romanian, and you speak Romanian. In Italy, your society is Italian, and you speak Italian. In France, your society is French, and you speak French.
This is not the case in the New World. Socialism is not inherent within “Western” people and civilization. This is the big gap of ignorance that many political analysts overlook or simply don’t know about.