The article comes close to implying that Libertarianism actually facilitates traditionalism, because traditionalism will triumph based on Darwinian principles, if allowed to act in an unfettered manner. That is an empirical matter, and I suspect wrong. It also misses the point, the point being that the issue is to what degree can traditionalism tolerate non-traditionalism in its midst, for the good and just society to survive and prosper, and facilitate the legitimate pursuit of human happiness?
Libertarianism is superficially attractive in suggesting that everyone has a right to do their own thing, provided that it does not impose costs on others. Traditionalists would have a weak case in opposing this. To do so smacks of officious intermedling, and a certain cultural hubris. It would also choke off cultural experimentation that might be healthy and necessary as technology and other external conditions evolve.
The rub of course is the "not imposing costs on others" bit. Most of our actions and cultural morays impact others, and impose costs and/or offer benefits. Tolerating Darwinian poverty, an uneducated populace that in too many instances can't afford or chooses not be seek knowledge, untrammeled substance abuse, irresponsible procreation, environmental pollution, a lack of revenues derived from coercive taxation necessary to finance the common defense and roads and public safety, does impose costs on the society at large that are not resolved by any private contract, and are not internalized in the price system. Someone is getting a free lunch, and someone is paying for it, no matter how much the libertarians would wish to deny it, and avoid dealing with it.
Thus the task is to find a balance between individual liberty and community concerns. Libertarian sensibilities and methods of internalizing as much as reasonably possible into the price system are useful in arriving at the most optimal balance, but not the whole solution. Much of it is beyond ideology, and must rely on practical experience and empirical data, the use of which must be combined with ideology, in seeking that elusive golden mean.
Government intervention in the economy always makes it worse.
an uneducated populace that in too many instances can't afford or chooses not be seek knowledge,
Sounds like inner city public schools to me.
untrammeled substance abuse,
Which we have now. The historical experience of Prohibition shows that it only gets worse when the government bans objects. (BTW, if the prohibition of alcohol needed an amendment to be Constitutional, why doesn't the prohibition of other drugs?)
irresponsible procreation,
Made possible by using the government as a solution for the first problem you listed.
environmental pollution,
You have a point, but I maintain that a way can be found to address it in a property rights framework.