While I found W. James Antle III's article interesting, I think that it somewhat misses the point of the conservative/libertarian crack up. The problem many of the Reason type left libertarians have with conservatives is quite different to what most LRC's have. Many of these people have no problem with the welfare/warfare state, globalism, or immigration. There main quibble with the conservatives is their muted opposition to immigration, same-sex marriage, cloning, abortion and otehr cultural issues. For example, I specifically recall Virginia Postrel challenge Jonah Goldberg to "prove" that the Bible sales are more socially desirable than porn sales. With National Review and the neocons quickly retreating on such issues (see Paul Gottfried's piece in the American Conservative on this issue a few weeks back), I don't see this creating much of a challenge.
Paleolibertarians, on the otherhand, disagree with the official conservatives on almost every issue imaginable in terms of economics, foreign policy, immigration, centralization and other issues that define modern politics. These positions are not reconciliable and for the most part, we agree more with the paleoconservatives (except perhaps on economics) than left libertarians, much less the neocons.
In other words, I think there could be a "libertarian crack-up" that is just part of the larger conservative crack-up, and tired appeals to fusionism are not going to stop them.