That is a perfect summary of the exact opposite of Rothbard’s wriiten opinion on the matter.
You make a good point but I see a contradiction there. Rothhbard champions the notion than only through ‘homesteading’ one’s self, i.e. leaving the parental home, the kid gains adulthood. A direct implication of that is that the ability to choose is required for adulthood. Yet, somehow a kid so young he can’t choose has ‘rights’? And what are rights? How can we say whether an action violates the NAP if we cannot ascertain whether whatever is being done is being done with or without consent? If the ability to express consent is missing, is the word ‘aggression’ menaingful anymore? Why one cannot agres against a tree? Or a dog? Because neither can express or deny consent.
To restate my previous point, suppose your kid sues you, after growing up, because you fed him fats thus causing heart trouble and shortening his life-span. Is he right is pretending compensation? What of a vaccine everybody was doing that later turns out to leave lasting health effects? Would compensation be in order then? If not, how can we say so unless we see that, if the kid cannot ‘say no’, agresison is meaningless a concept.
The whole ‘trusteeship’ thing appear artificial to me. It’s simple: as long as they cannot express opinion, everything is fair game, for without opinion we cannot say whether an act is invasive. After they can express an opinion (leave) than we imply consent by their non-leaving.
Not entirely Rothbard take, it is true, but what I think to be a consisent approach with his overall ideas.