Yeah, the whole thing seemed pretty silly. "I'm such a hardcore libertarian that I think it should be legal for people named BabyWanker to write stories about raping babies, but we can deal with that after we legalize weed, prostitution, all drugs, and literally everything else first... in the meantime he should be killed." Ok then, should it be legal or should he be killed? Is Nick advocating for an extrajudicial solution to a libertarian problem? I presume murder's still illegal in Nick's libertarian utopia, so that's not a solution, no matter how much he believes the guy should be put against the wall. Either he thinks the government should do it, or it shouldn't be done.
Kicking the can down the road a few hundred years into some libertarian nigh-utopia that'll never actually exist and saying "and THEN we'll legalize these stories about perverts raping kids" doesn't strike me as honest. It's too fucking easy to say that in some hypothetical future that'll never exist (and even if it did, wouldn't exist within your lifetime), something should be legalized. Just fucking admit that you don't think it should be legal and you're not such a hardcore libertarian after all. You're still pretty damn libertarian and I don't think many people are going to criticize you for drawing that line.