What if a biologist, peering one-eyed through his powerful electron microscope at a tiny atom, observed a previously-unnoticed detail, the ramifications of which would throw the existing notions of atomic and molecular functions out the window?
Not only would it make him uncomfortable, because it would upset his decades-long understanding of how reality functions, but it would unbalance entire established scientific communities-- which, like any organizations, have their firmly-grasped sacred cows and borderline religious-like zealotry and dogma.
If this hypothetical biologist was a real scientist, where that term is defined as "someone who goes wherever the truth leads him, no matter how personally uncomfortable the cognitive dissonance might be", then he would not only continue to study this new information, but would accept the new conclusions which it carries!
Libertarians are scientists. Real scientists. Wherever the truth leads them, that's where they go, accepting the suddenly-obvious conclusions as they proceed-- even when those newfound facts are unpleasant, or uncomfortable, or not financially in that specific Libertarian's best interests.
And this is the problem I have with conservatives: they'll accept the truths in isolation, but the instant the unavoidable conclusions become uncomfortable to them, they scramble for the higher ground where their previously-held convictions live-- even when these convictions are at complete odds with the new truths. Following this, they engage in mental gymnastics to fruitlessly try and reconcile the glaring contradictions.
Conservatives are only interested in truth to the point until it makes them start to sweat a little.
Then you get to the pesky case of Liberals. They are the most simple-minded of all, as their thinking comes in two steps. The first: in the cloudy, swirling, murky vagaries of their thoughts, if an action or belief makes them feel good, then it's correct. The second, and this looms even more significantly: if it's in their personal financial best interest, they will fight for it tooth and nail.
Where contradictions emerge between these two positions, they simply moralize endlessly about what really just boils down to a simple financial position. For example, women want free food, free health care, free daycare, free condoms, and free abortions-on-demand. These are all financial concerns. Then, ex post facto, they convert each of these into moral considerations: "it's the woman's body", "the patriarchy is oppressing women and that's unfair", and so on.
As the most rational group in American politics, Libertarians are open the compromise, only: from where can compromise be found?
It's easier with Conservatives, because most potential incremental improvements just-so-happen to jive with some of their existing scripts, and so don't make them uncomfortable. It's a happy accident. For example, Conservatives today want to localize power because they believe their "social contract theory" works better that way-- so a Libertarian might propose, "why not fund things with voluntary contributions on a per-use basis at the State government level, such as how fishing licenses presently work?" And boom: toll roads. Not perfect, but a happy compromise.
But with Liberals, who will en masse truck fellow-Leftists from places like Honduras and then help them illegally cross the border law-and-order be damned, all in pursuit of such noble causes as getting free "welfare" at someone else's expense (again, it's just a simple financial concern, ignore the wallpaper moralizing), negotiating a middle ground becomes more like haggling over the price of a used car: Baltimore residents can pillage and burn down two CVSs, but three...
With Conservatives, one can usually find compromises which are compatible with the Conservative's emotional pre-conditioning. This is possible because Conservatives are generally stable people, whose views are fairly constant over time. But with Liberals, their perceptions of right and wrong are not static or based on any "larger than life" convictions, such as a belief in logic or religion. Without those kinds of anchors or guiding principles, their world view is like an endlessly moving goal post. This makes compromise almost impossible.
Setting aside the painfully obvious route of secession, which is people exercising their negative right to freely associate-- a path with runs against the scripts of Conservatives ("but... the social contract theory!") and Liberals ("but who will pay for my free stuff then?"), making it politically untenable-- the best option would be for Libertarians and Conservatives to form some kind of super-majority, and simply overrule the Liberals that way.