[Kevin Curry]

Libertarianism can justify no prohibition against adult-child sex--provided the sex is "consensual."

Some savvy libertarians already realize this and just don't say much about it, knowing that as bad as things are, the moral sensibilities of most Americans still have not rotted to the degree of corruption needed to allow them to easily accept or tolerate adult-child sex. To spare libertarianism early bad press, they are content to let that sleeping mangy mongrel lie for now.

Other libertarians still deny that their idiotic and feeble-brained "consent über alles" philosophy can offer no defense to adult-child sex. But "scientists" have already declared children capable of consenting to sexual intercourse with adults, leaving libertarians with no objective basis to refuse to allow "consensual" adult-child sex.

In time they'll accept and embrace even pedophilia. I won't. But then I'm a bigoted, intolerant, hateful, Christian fundamentalist statist.

[garbanzo]

Well what's a "child"? Is there something magic about the age of 18? We have age of consent laws because it would difficult for the state to judge consent in each and every case. Where exactly we draw the line is to some degree arbitrary - there are plenty of 18 year olds who too immature to have sex and some 16 year olds who are. A point of fact is that in many states and countries the age of consent is 16 so this isn't really that big a moral dilemma - no more so than a 17-year-old having sex where the age of consent is 18.