None are particularly compatible with each other. Libetarians respect the personal liberties of the individual above that of any ruling elite (all other governing). Democracies erode some personal liberties to pander to the masses.
And libertarians don't offer up unified and consistent protection of systems which will break down when divided, all so arbitrary rights can be awarded to each individual.
I think, given the opportunity, there would be groups of individuals who would collectively provide services in a number of ways to protect an individual's liberties. Inconsistencies already abound now. I'm not sure that will ever go away. If a system was perfect, it wouldn't need itself to exist as people would just do the "right thing" in the first place.
Delegating away, and thus monopolizing, power of governance is always a bad idea (violates contract). At that point, there is very little incentive to improve. Besides, the NAP is very eloquent and simple. If you were to attempt to educate everybody to provide services with that axiom as a cornerstone, anybody drifting far afield of that would be called to task relatively quickly. Notice I didn't say force its use, just notify.
Most people are aware when their personal liberties are being encroached upon. Given that fact, I think many would find laws relatively easy to understand and create. Any person or persons violating that provision on a consistent basis would find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned as it would be difficult to last long in that state of operation. Violent monopolies change that significantly because they are not allowed to fail. Corruption can only grow in that situation.