I saw nobody answered your questions, so I thought I would give it a shot. Keep in mind that my answers may not be entirely accurate.
One problem is that you seem to be creating scenarios based on somewhat faulty assumptions, which creates a ridiculous scenario, but I'll try to clarify.
Question 1: The short answer to your question is that many government functions (e.g. military) would be funded with usage fees rather than by taxation (which Libertarians view as legalized theft).
Question 2: See number 1.
3: The innuendo in your question suggests that kids will now start doing drugs because they're legal.
First, you need to understand that the Libertarian philosophy is that it's a natural right for living beings of all species to consume that which they choose. Therefore, laws banning consumption of drugs, fatty foods, etc, seem as ridiculous as laws banning the practice of religion, or bans on free speech. Some see it as a right vs. wrong issue, and others (like me) see it as a practical issue -- laws trying to stop people from engaging in natural behavior are impossible to enforce. But another part is being at liberty to think for yourself instead of having Big Brother "nanny-ing" you.
Second, I "feel" that the innuendo of your question is suggesting that the anti-drug laws in place now are the chief reason why more kids don't do drugs. However, for one example, kids today find marijuana (illegal) much easier to obtain than alcohol (regulated). Sorry, I don't have a link to the study that showed this (read it years ago), but ask your friends and they'll probably confirm that generally speaking, this is true.
Thirdly, there was a time, believe it or not, when all this crap was legal. Somehow, when Coca-cola had cocaine in it, not everyone in the US turned into a coke-whore.
The most important thing in regard to kids and narcotics is that legalization of drugs will FORCE parents to fall back onto the REAL solution to prevent kids from using drugs -- which is better parenting.
Question 4: There is obvious innuendo here and you wrote it in the form of a complex question, but that's ok.
First, understand that child pornography in many cases would involve CHILD RAPE, which would still be illegal (with publishers, etc contributing to the crime). It wouldn't happen.
I'll discuss this one further with you if you'll assume that Libertarians are more reasonable than to allow child rape (which is always unacceptable.)
Question 5: There's more innuendo here. Deregulation doesn't mean allowing blatant FRAUD and CRIME -- these should be punished. For example, hitmen wouldn't be "legal" in a Libertarian society. The power situation is a bad example as well. Do you know how much gov't regulation is already in there? It's like a tangled ball of yarn.
Question 6: This question is so full of suggestions and faulty assumptions that I don't even know where to start. All I can say is that you should credit Libertarians with some rationality and assume we wouldn't let convicted criminals walk the street just because they don't "feel" like serving their 20 year sentence.
It would probably be a very similar situation to how the US was shortly after it founded. Warrants required for searches, speedy trials, innocent until proven guilty, jury comprised of peers, etc.
Email me if you'd like to discuss this further.
