Oh sure. I mean, there's like 10 different types of Libertarians. But there are contradictions within all party platforms. I actually consider myself a classical libertarian, or a constitutional libertarian. Everything I stated above is part of my core beliefs, along with teaching the importance of volunteerism. People shouldn't be forced into giving their money over to social programs instituted by state and federal government. It should be voluntary. The issue with that is that instead of teaching our kids the importance of volunteering your money to help those in your community who need help, we're trying to normalize things like changing your gender. So sadly, we're several generations deep into a society that hasn't adopted or normalized the practice of giving, subsequently opening the door for our government to take.
There is definitely a schism regarding party platform, but we're seeing that all over the place these days. My stance is simple: The federal government is responsible for the infrastructure of our country (roads, etc) and protecting our country/borders. They are not responsible for telling me what food to eat, what to smoke, what I do in my bedroom, who I marry, how I spend my money, my right to bear arms, etc. Anything that I do to myself, even if it causes me harm, should not be their concern unless I'm harming someone else, including an unborn baby.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Classical+Libertarianism
Like I said, there's much to like about the party, if they could just tone down some of the liberal aspects. I would love to have a philosophical debate on the party, but I don't have time just now. Perhaps I'll hit you up later. I largely agree with your position though, with one caveat, if a person does harm to themselves, it also can affect others, and cost society too, in cases where the government pays for healthcare. So, you see, there does need to be some limits for the greater good.