Here I'll say much about "libertarianism". This is because, according to my knowledge, it is about libertarianism. Of course, I could be wrong it, or whatever. Never trust anything. Not what you read, not what you hear, not what someone tells you, not even yourself (I don't trust yourself, either). Nor myself. Think for yourself. If you see something wrong, point it out. Or don't point it out, but if you don't point it out, don't complain. Don't be a ninny. If anything, this can be interpreted as what is in accord with my knowledge about it, but I'm not going to specify that each time, because that's takes up too much of anyone's time. It is something that is important to keep in mind, though. Whatever is said, is said by someone using his knowledge, his abilities, his ideas, or, perhaps, his lies, misconceptions, et cetera.
libertarianism can be very dogmatic
No, it can't. Dogmatism is against libertarianism.
libertarianism can be very inflexible
In the sense of involutive logical rigour? Sure, but that's not what people usually mean by "inflexible". They usually mean that it's inflexible in practise, which libertarianism is not. If anything, libertarianism is the most practically flexible of all it's compettitors.
supporting the legalization of various "victimless crimes"
In a certain sense, yes, but no. This sentence demonstrates that you don't know the first thing about libertarianism: that there are no laws, therefore no crimes, therefore no idea about "legalizing" anything. There are, instead, actions. Some actions have bad consequences. Some consequences are bad for someone else. Actions whose consequences are bad for someone else (i.e. other than the actor), are analogous to crimes, in that they are proscribed. The difference is that, unlike crimes, if all affected parties agree to it (and that means informed consent), it's not proscribed.
socially acceptable
What do you mean by "socially acceptable"? If you mean to include the opinions of a person who is not affected by it, then yes, libertarianism doesn't care about whether something is "socially acceptable". On the other hand, if you mean to include the opinions of only those who are affected by it, they libertarianism cares a great deal about whether it's "socially acceptable". The principle is that, if all affected parties agree to it, let it happen. If there is an affected party that did not agree to it, it must have some sort of recourse to collect on any damages that were caused to it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "deontological" libertarianism, becuse libertarianism is inherently not deontological. The closest thing to deontologicality in a libertarian society is the adherence to one's promises, agreements. But this is founded in matters of the goodness of the consequences, which is the opposite of deontological ethics, which is about following whatever set rules, which is exactly what most contemporary legal-systems have as their basis: a set of rules decided one way or another, which people must follow, lest the government punish them.
Burn your straw man elsewhere.