link to original reddit post by /u/Temporary_Put7933
Children have always seemed like an edge case to libertarian ideology. You either have a government where the people agree to use force to protect and limit the rights and responsibilities of children or you don't.
If we go with the government protection option, then we are saying that it is okay to restrict the rights of a person for their own protection. We may claim it is for a really special one time only exception and we won't ever use this power to limit the rights of others, but we are still making an exception for the government and government loves nothing more than expanding reasonable exceptions in unreasonable ways.
Some may argue that if you are wiling to protect a 17 year old from a predatory loan, why would it be so unreasonable to protect an 18 year old from the same? If you will put limits on how unsafe a job a 17 year old can work, why is it so unreasonable to have safety standards for a job an 18 year old is working. Even if we just accept to draw a hard line and say it is unreasonable, there is still the remaining problem of funding the government to provide these extra services.
If instead we go with the no government option, then doesn't that open some children up to be targeted. I've seen some suggest that parents will protect their children, but even if we assume that'll work in the majority cases, we are still left with millions of children who will either have parents unwilling or incapable of protecting them or even parents who harm their children. As for the option of private protection services, what happens when a child is tricked into denying any protection from the service? Can a service forcefully protect someone against their will?
There is also concerns of using violence against children for their own benefit. The most common example would be a parent spanking a child, an act that between two non-consenting adults would constitute assault. Timeouts and physically restraining children are also common. For older children who are able to earn money, depriving them of their property without a trial is also a standard form of punishment, though some argue parents should only be allowed to take away items the provided. How does a libertarian society deem what violence, direct or indirect, can be used against a child to correct their actions? This seems worse than limiting their rights as we are authorizing violence without consequence, as long as the violence doesn't cross whatever socially deemed threshold is present.