Is this bait

The entire point of that paper is to give a libertarian justification for having concern for future generations. Namely it extends the lockean proviso to them. I summarized the paper in my first comment.

Therefore, libertarianism does not fail to account for future generations. This is your false claim and I have refuted it.

That paper is proof you are wrong about the lockean proviso and wrong in your conclusion.

> libertarianism adopts a person-affecting view, whereby the moral status of an act depends on the rights and consent only of affected living people.

Is this an axiom or a conclusion? If axiom, it is a strawman. If conclusion, a non sequitur.

> To give future people rights under libertarianism would already be accepting a hypothetical social contract since future people cannot actually consent.

This is a non sequitur. Pure libertarian principles confer rights and obligations to people where it might be known who the victim will be, and exactly what will happen to him, but it might be temporarily impossible to communicate with him. Or it might be known that some person or other will be the victim of an act, but it might be impossible to find out which person. This naturally extends to future generations.

You may also consider the scifi case where a man does not exist today, but will miraculously exist tomorrow. In such a case, it is immoral to build a trap that would kill the man when he materializes.

You really fell down a rabbit hole of bad logic.

Just because you and a majority consent to a moral system, doesn't make the system actually moral. Sometimes one is morally bound to violated immoral laws.

> Laws under these regimes can be compared to an illegal contract. This can include a contract where one party acted under duress, coercion, or fraudulent information. Under our legal system, contracts like these would be voidable,...

Hence, the failure of social contract theory to handle explicit rejection of consent.

How can one reason that the social contract is legitimate? How was it consented to? What happens when the state breaks their end of the contract?

You would have to do a lot more work to prove those things are contradictory.

Regarding pro life, the GOP seems to be heavily weighting things being done TO a life, like abortion, relative to things happening as a result of inaction. I don't think that's obviously incoherent.

Regarding guns, they believe guns offer them a means to protect themselves and loved ones. People of diverse ideologies have recently lost trust in the police. Couple that with the fact that the police legally have no duty to protect you, and have qualified immunity when they do something wrong. Again, not obviously incoherent.

Is there a social contract in the first place? Can the terms of the contract be rejected?