Left/Libertarian is hard to fathom since it would generally mean taking resources away from them to take care of or protect others through government. It would be a strange breed of left/lib (or more moderate biased) person who could consider both as a non-conflicting goal.
I'd prefer to view the spectrum of something like:
Fiscally Left (social assistance, progressive taxation, universal healthcare)
Fiscal Right (limited services, fewer laws and restrictions, libertarian ideals)
Socially Left (Egalitarian, Pro-choice, +GBLT, anti-discrimination, free_speech (when not discrimination), corporate limits, etc..)
Socially Right (Pro-Life, anti-social-missfits, anti-'sjw', in-group government, prohibitions)
The left's line up much better in this scheme, because in order for government to hypothetically help others, they need to redistribute wealth. Larger government means the potential for 'fair and equitable' living standards for all. Practicality aside, they are naturally married to one another which is why you often never see the distinction.
The right on the other hand has a quandary. The two sides of the coin are not strictly tied to one another, and in reality can quite often fight on opposite sides of an issue. Socially right's limits on what an individual can do flies in the face of fiscally right's limits on government intervention. Together, the philosophies kind of make sense, but not nearly as cohesively as leftists. Examples: Temperance, and Abortion are two very strong factors of a classically good socially right-wing christian for example. A libertarian on the other hand should naturally look at both as a direct attacks on one's right to decide their own fate and live their lives as they see fit.