All basic principles of universal liberty have fundamental assumptions that:
a. all individuals are actors
b. all individuals both expect and receive the same rights and obligations
Obviously this as stated is incompatible with current child-rearing practices and protection laws. However, that is in large part because the debates necessary to settle or justify those features have never been had. Why would you seriously argue such things when the most superficial elements of liberty are only superficially applied?
If liberty is the path to the most ideal outcomes for the most people, then some set of interpretations and assumptions will arise to justify the best practices in this area. Given the problems of chemical addiction and aging, it is entirely possible that some deterministic anti-measures will have to be cooked in, though I can think of a few scenarios where it would not be.
In the end, these child-rearing practices and protection laws may simply change. They're new and many are seen as "forward progress" but it is entirely possible that they are arbitrary or inadequate. The best reconciliation of liberty and good sense may wind up being that no one fucks until they're 26 to eliminate as much hormonal influence as possible, but it could just as well generate a system that takes the individual more into account (as it usually does) and could open teens up to open sexual behavior as young as 13 or as old as 20 on a case by case basis. Such things may not even be seen as strange, as in the past.
In the end, though, people have a good sense for what is and isn't OK. Fucking prepubescent kids and barely developed teens wont wind up being a 'good thing', and as humans, we will game the system and lie to ourselves as hard as we can to make that the case, damned the consequences. Fucking 15 year olds as a 30-something will probably never be okay, even if a 14 year old and a 16 year old experimenting gets a pass.
>Being sexual with children doesn't violate the NAP
being sexual probably violates the NAP, we just don't know it yet.
>they just don't turn gay, they turn into something we don't really have a name yet for
posttraumatic stress disorder doesn't turn you into 'something else', it just means you have PTSD. There are plenty of gays without it, but there are indeed many whose gayness seems to have been initiated by an often sexual traumatic event, especially in childhood.
>So according to Libertarians that say
you can't nail 'most libertarians' on anything, let alone all. Even trying is optimistic at best and braindead retarded at worst.
>abusing children is okay, because you get their later consent for this.
You cannot give retroactive consent under any vision of the NAP. Implicit consent is more considered; i.e. you sign a contract with an attorney that consents to their representation and therefore implicitly consent to things they do to you or say about you thereafter, even if you don't like it in the moment. It's very hard to give "implicit consent" to be molested by a person you've never had or implied any sexual activity with, definitionally, and 'she's a tease' doesn't even hold up under already present and more judgmental laws.
tl;dr fuck off lol, the PIDF is shortsighted at best and closeted statists trying to subvert the message at worst