Is libertarianism incompatible with Democracy?

[Kralizec]

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.

Legal positivism was aimed at creating predictable rights and obligations by creating a transparant, clear system of laws. Theoretically, judges would only rely on statutes and such instead of local customs, "natural law" or subjective notions of morality. They rejected the idea of "natural law" specifically because law & justice are man-made concepts. I have absolutetly no idea where you got the idea from that legal positivism is about exhaustively summing up the things a person is allowed to do, and forbid him from doing anything not expressly allowed; it simply isn't true.

About "classic" constitutional rights like speech, religion and whatnot; the function of these is not to enable citizens to do something they'd otherwise be forbidden to do; but to prevent the legislator from interfering with a simple statute. It's function is to define what the government cannot do. I'm pretty sure that I've pointed this out to you before.

So to answer the original question, libertarianism is little more than an extreme version of classical liberalism, and is in no way incompatible with democracy.

Theoretically not, but given the fact that a vast portion, in most countries the majority of the population stand to lose from a libertarian administration, it doesn't stand much of a chance in an open and fair election.