Which government styles would we use? Parliamentary, presidential, etc
I prefer parlimentary. I feel like recent events in America have shown the instability that comes with too much centralized executive power.
Would we be a democracy? If not, why not?
Yes, you need to be able to remove ruling parties from power if they fail the people and I haven't seen an alternative way to do that. Although I would try to balance it with technocratic elements. For example, a democratically elected lower chamber, and a higher chamber connected with academic institutions. The lower chamber would propose laws and the higher chamber would have the power to veto laws that go against available scientific evidence.
Assuming we are a democracy, which voting system would we use?
Instant-runoff voting to prevent issues with strategic voting.
Which economic system would we use?
Market socialism in the early stages, social democracy in later stages. Market socialism as a compromise between dealing with the socialist calculation debate and the fact that in practical terms a pedophile state would have to practice a high degree of autarky. If we achieved peace and recognition with other countries, we could switch to more liberal economic policies, although, because I expect the population of MAPs is small, it wouldn't make sense to try and pursue economic growth over everything. Keeping political independence would require limiting the number of non-MAPs becoming citizens, which in turn means you can't pursue unrestricted economic growth.
Should we strive for lower or higher taxes? How would this benefit MAPs and youth?
I would say high taxes. Being a primarily autarkic country, there would be little use for disposable income. Perhaps, have two different currencies, one for foreign luxury goods which is untaxed, and another which is for economic necessities which is localized, if there were outside countries willing to trade.
Should we have an age of consent? If not, how would you propose we protect youth against abuse? If yes, what age should it be and why?
No. I think laws should be structured around harm, rather than age. Causing physical or psychological trauma would be criminal, but statutory rape as it currently is wouldn't be.
Should education be mandatory?
Yes. Participation in an autarkic state would require both economic and political education.
Would we continue pursuing a traditional / nuclear family model, or move to something else?
I would say a predominantly MAP state would have to have a different parenting structure. Perhaps closer to how indigenous communities collectively raise children. I would say children would have a parental figure who isn't attracted to them (e.g. a homosexual man looking after a young girl), and a pederast-like mentor that is attracted to them who would educate them in some capacity. Mentors would be changed if they failed in their duties, while the parental figure would usually remain the same. So most adults would have two children they had to care for, one they were unattracted to, whom they have a higher responsibility to, and one they could engage in a romantic relationship with, which could be taken away if they mistreated them.
What are some rights that youth should have in this new country that are absent in most countries today?
I think the rights would largely be the same.
What do you think is the most simple cause of anti-MAP sentiments are in the world — and how would this hypothetical country prevent that from manifesting in the first place?
Sex-negativity as it leads to feeling as though children need to be protected from sexuality because of their purity from it. I would say you prevent it by seeing sex as a need rather than a want. So for example, you might be taught to masturbate in a similar manner to being taught to brush your teeth or eat healthily. Sexual repression would generally be seen as a sign of being maladjusted. I might even go so far as saying you need a general stigma/taboo against celibacy.
Taking a break.
