Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.
With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.
With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.
*Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*
I repeat: libertarian/classical liberal political philosophy is grounded in the Lockean paradigm of human rights derived from self-reflective consciousness (your lack of understanding of which is probably why you've always displayed a hilarious incomprehension of your own political philosophy). A mentally handicapped/vegetative person already has no rights, as evinced by the fact that they are remanded over into the possessorship of their next-of-kin.
Poll
