Of course, for now, the law would be on your side since pedophilia is still illegal. But, let's say Nambla has their way, and the age of consent was lowered to 10, 11 etc. and Sandusky's victim insisted it was consensual?
the problem with abandoning the notion of a(n absolute) moral imperative is that it leaves such judgments up to the interpretation of every person, and/or the laws of man, which we know has, in different societies permitted the torching of Jews, the murder of the unborn, etc. You can argue, as I'm sure Rand would, that those actions impede on the rights of others (i.e. the Jews or the unborn), but if we don't recognize an unalienable source for what we accept as unalienable rights, then by definition, those rights are as malleable as those in power wish them to be.
Sandusky’s “self interest” involved directly harming another human being, something which Rand specifically rejected. But you knew that.
I do not suffer fools gladly. Indeed at my age I try not to suffer them at all. Therefore this conversation is over.