The Libertarian party is also a libertine party. It is hardly a party that is likely to win multiple elections, still there is nothing inconsistent with the libertarian message and someone who was a sex offender at the age of 19, or even a prostitute for the matter, since consent is all that matters. Potentially there is a problem with the 19 year old, but is hard to tell how bad the acts of the 19 year old were, or how mature the 14 year old was. The law by impossing an age limit gives a bright line rule. Mathew Barnes lacked discretion at a young age, but he was also at this time below the age of consent in terms of drinking alcohol. Hypothetically speaking a bar could have gotten into a lot of trouble had they served a 19 year old Mathew Barnes a single drink and following this drink Barnes was in a car accident. While a single drink is hardly enough to establish proximate cause, the illegality of the service would have sufficed to pin liability upon the bar. Ironically had the same bar served someone who was clearly drunk, they would have also been in trouble had he gotten into an accident, and yet liability would have been a more difficult question, and the foreseeability component of proximate cause without a bright line rule would hinge more heavily on the facts.

It may certainly be wrong to serve minors, and it may certainly be wrong to have consensual sex with minors, albeit it is unclear that this is the official position of the minority Libertarian party. Rather the libertarian party because it isn't necessarily trying to win elections isn't exactly subject to the soft-tyranny or formalism that constrains the Democrats or Republicans.

There is no such thing as message mismanagement on the part of the the Libertarians, there is just more opportunity for risk taking because there is less to lose.

It would be best if we could just burn this guy at the stake, but since we can't then lets insist he be blackballed from politics where "mistakes" conserning sexual conduct have no place.

Sarcasm right?