Questions for anarchists

So, if a child "voluntarily" entered a relationship with a pederast, that would be acceptable in an anarchist society..
This morality system is pure idealism. Someone might voluntarily enter an agreement while not understanding the consequences, for example if he is naive, has mental health problem, is illiterate or under drugs. If there isn't a centralized authority to judge the circumstances and enforce the law, you can't have a society.

A childvis a child, and cannot make all decisions for itself in the same manner as adults.

Who says so in an anarchist society? What if a commune votes otherwise?

To be fair to anarkiddies that scenario is pretty ridiculous and could apply to any system

"Who says so in an ☭TANKIE☭ society? What if a central authority decrees otherwise?"

"Who codifies the rules that way in society y? What if the apparatus that codifies rules codifies the rules another way?"

Also

Mother fucker informed consent has been brought up ITT and you are just being intentionally dense probably trying to make screenshots to act as your own personal straw man to whip out at people. this post is clearly just really lazy bait and a mod should ban you for it.

That's not true, any other system doesn't really care about voluntaryism, they uphold class rule and the status quo.

The apparatus that codifies rules is controlled by the ruling class of each society.
Not wanting to cause riots, and while not in its direct interest, a ruling class wouldn't allow pederasty to be made legal, when most of the oppressed class are against it.

Yes? There is no age of consent without a state.

I'm not sure what you mean. Any country in the world could abolish the age of consent if enough people wanted it to be abolished.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

There are material reasons why a today's society wouldn't want that.

Of course with enough propaganda this could change, but that doesn't change reality.

Thing is, in an anarchist commune of say, a city with 10000 people, you can end up with people passing laws that are not acceptable to the majority of society because said people have a majority in their city.

This is a meme. If you choose to delegate then you are the one with power. The anarchists who speak of justified hierarchies are brainlets who almost certainly don't understand what a state is either. You might "submit" to a surgeon giving you heart surgery but you are also a member of the community and the surgeon's performance being in your interest is a prerequisite to be accepted as such in the community. Taking advantage of someone in a compromised position is not just a transgression against the individual, but against any person who may end up in a (necessarily) compromised position. Same as if you kill someone in their sleep. Such a person who would take advantage like that is a threat to others and is subject to their freedom to prevent such harm in the future.

A state by definition asserts its authority based on its ability to pragmatically enforce it (i.e. might makes right). Someone who enjoys a position within that entity has materially different interests than the "subjects" of it. They have a material interest in maintaining the power differential while those subject to it have an interest in ending it.