In particular, their leader, Ian Bernard, has some objectionable, and non-libertarian, views about the age of consent.
Pretty serious charge. Care to back that up?
All I've ever heard from him is that there is no such thing as an age of consent, which is the correct libertarian position. No libertarian (and especially not someone like yourself who
claims to be an anarchist) could possibly support a single, State-mandated age of consent for all individuals.
Sex absent consent is rape, regardless of whether that consent is lacking due to direct force, chemical incapacitation, lack of maturity, or whatever other reason might prevent it. There's no single age at which all individuals gain the maturity to consent to sex. Fifteen years and three-hundred-sixty-four days, and sex is a crime, but sixteen years and zero days, it is not? There's nothing even vaguely libertarian about such nonsense. Some individuals may be able to consent earlier than that. Some might not even be able to consent at seventeen or eighteen years, or more.
The libertarian position is that for a charge of rape to stick, it must be proved that there was not actual consent. Lack of consent (for any possible reason) is an element of the crime that must be proven by the accuser. In cases where lack of maturity
actually prevents consent, there will be
zero problem convincing an arbitrator, jury, or whatever that there was no consent.
Any State-mandated single age for
anything is anti-libertarian. It is evil both in terms of false convictions of individuals who have not actually harmed anyone, and in lending formal authorization to acts which, objectively-speaking, were violations of someone's rights.
So, do you have evidence of him supporting any sort of anti-libertarian position on "age of consent," like (for example) that there is such a thing?
If there is ever a free society, there will be no public. There will only be private property.
Technically true, but that does not mean that there will not be areas open to the public, and preserved for that purpose, by those who own those areas.
I also disagree that all of these norms and customs are the handiwork of statists. I believe that many cultural norms and customs are the outgrowth of the market. Public nudity isn't frowned upon because some statist is trying to keep us down.
Actually, yes, it is. Public nudity was common, and did not destroy society, until the Puritans pushed their nonsense by political means.
On the western bank of the Connecticut River (ie, in Vermont), I can walk around bare naked all I want, and the world does not end. Take one step into New Hampshire, and that becomes illegal. Are you claiming that moving a matter of a few feet means that I'm somehow in an entirely-different culture with entirely-different norms and customs? Nope, the only difference is political.