Sure. When you think of the Libertarian "rules", you ask whether following the rule is important even if you follow the rule without understanding why the rule is there. Not a wave to anarchy, but an honest approach to understanding the motivation for the rule. And asking whether simply abiding by the libertarian doctrine is more important than being happy?
The deontological libertarian just simply believes in the rules. Do no harm for example. No stray, no asking if or but, or in this circumstance, but just follow the rule.
Contrastingly the consequentialist libertarian believes that what makes people prosperous and happy is what is most important and the rules should be based around that. They are not pacifists, or against force (or harm) per say, but they support strong private property rights because it generally makes people happy and prosperous.
Libertarianism has an innate conflict in deciding on issues like whether to support abortion or not because of this split.