Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea than to offend a little child (Luke 17:2). Child pornographers are clearly an example of the scum Jesus was talking about. But so are public school educrats who encourage children to experiment sexually before marriage (as long as the children use condoms, of course). It is a form of child abuse not to teach children “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.“

A true libertarian position certainly abolishes child pornography laws but that position is not held in a vacuum. The libertarian would abolish a lot more things which insidiously facilitate the child pornography too thus leaving more control back into the hands of parents.

[…] Much has been made the last week about the controversy surrounding Mary Ruwart, who is seeking the Libertarian nomination for President, and a portion of her book Short Answers to the Tough Questions. The offending passage is: […]…

“So, following this logic, we should also decriminalize murder, seeing as when it is outlawed the cost of a hitman rises, increasing the incentive for someone to kill for money?“

Technically, yes, if you want.
However, the markets are completely different. We do not go around comparing the behaviors of agents in the for cigarettes to those in the market for shoe repairs, do we?

“I cannot see how anyone can argue that a child is ready to make the kind of choice that would subject them to child pornography, and in almost every case they will be influenced by either their parents, or the pornographer.“

Again, Mary Ruwart is NOT making that argument either. In the passage you quoted, she clearly says “against their will” — that being the will of the children.

You are right: the candidate for the Libertarian Party has no chance of winning the presidency. Then again, they are not real libertarians anyway. They are just advocates for selectively smaller government.