You have to admit Deks, your repeated use of the phrase "relevant general education" is kind of ominous.
You have posted that the current system indoctrinates people to a certain way of thinking, but you yourself are advocating the same thing, in favor of a different system.
So, by suggesting to expand the awareness of the global population to include the latest scientific knowledge (among other things) and relevant information that would expand people's horizons is ominous?
By 'relevant general education', it means exposure to all subjects relating to man, encouragement of critical thought and to become problem solvers.
'Indoctrination' is a terminology that can be seen as 'limiting' Human perception of what is happening in the world.
The present education system is outdated, inefficient, and it doesn't expose children (or adults) to relevant information in a variety of subjects.
Its based on repetition, competition, very little critical thinking or problem solving involved, and the information in question is almost never delivered in a capacity that could be seen as 'engaging' (coupled with the overall negative perception present society is generating towards certain subjects).
I agree with this. It is basically impossible.
As it was already said, its not 'impossible'. The present socio-economic system did a terrific job in creating limited awareness of how Human behavior and technology works.
A lot of Humans jump to conclusions and attempt to justify it with the (relatively limited) knowledge at their disposal - which was rarely, if ever introduced to alternative options/solutions (as opposed to a singular perception and a way of doing things - which happen to work great for the present socio-economic system).
By this I'm not stating my perception or way of thinking are 'superior' in any capacity. It is merely different, and I also acknowledge the premise that there's A LOT of things I don't know about (in that regard, my knowledge is also limited).
What do you do about people who kill for crimes of passion such as a lover cheating on them?
Will there still be police?
Will he be educated on the wickedness of his ways and released?
Will there be no punishment for murder?
What if said person frequently commits same crimes / incidents?
Crimes of passion that you describe stem from the notion of 'possession' and that something 'belongs to you' (which humans in the present environment transpose to other humans they form emotional connections to) - a byproduct of a system based on 'ownership' (just because you have emotional ties to someone doesn't mean you 'own' them in any way - besides, monogamy is a byproduct of culture, and while it probably wouldn't be eradicated, crimes of passion you describe form not just because of the present system, but also because very few people are ever encouraged to approach life/situations in a 'calm' capacity, to control their emotions in a manner that would allow them to see things in a more objective capacity (this way of thinking is increasing however).
This kind of change won't happen over-night... but people would have to be re-educated during the transition and exposed to these ways of doing things if you want them to function in a resource based economy.
You simply cannot thrust people from a present system into a new one without tuning their minds to how the new system works or broadening their perceptions.
Police and governments would still exist during the transitional period, but once its done, they would be likely phased out because eventually, the need for them would no longer be present.
To simply incarcerate people for what we currently see as 'crimes' but not helping them is ineffective (neither would 'shaming' them for what they've done and then sending them on their way - your inferred 'solution' is a bit [forgive me for saying this] offensive).
Most crimes committed today are related to the system the people doing them grew up in (tied to finances) - but even in cases of those who could be considered 'true pshychopats' (for a lack of better term), their behavior is down to the environment as well.
Increasing number of psychiatrists is barely starting to acknowledge that trying to search for the underlying cause of the person's behavior is the way to helping them.
In a resource based economy, their behavior would have to be examined in fullest detail to see if they can be helped and discouraged from creating future incidents (you have to make sure to look at the bigger picture from the start, because if you don't, then problems could easily arise down the line).
Imprisoning people and putting them into a depraving environment full (like we do today) will only serve to propagate aberrant forms of behavior - and in most cases, they often come out of prison even more dangerous than what they were.
This is NOT a solution.
Also... what is the point of 'eye for an eye'? If people adhered to that philosophy, everyone would go blind.
What's to stop people from taking somebody else's stuff when they clearly have not relinquished current usage of said item and this creates conflict which may resort to violence.
Will there be just re-education and releasing of said person?
Why would people take someone's stuff away from them when they would have the ability to requisition exactly the same for themselves on demand and use it how/when they see fit?
People steal today mostly because of money, or because they want to have that particular item.
A resource based economy would make this moot because everything would be accessible to everyone - so there would be no point to stealing.
The main point here is educating people to understand that if they need or want something, they merely have to make a request to the distribution center and that's it.
Also... should an incident of 'stealing' even happen, what makes you think a violent conflict would arise?
Exposing people to various forms of mental techniques such as meditation for the purpose of calming ones emotions, violent outbursts as you see them today would be minimized if not completely eradicated - if that is the purpose of what the individual is trying to achieve.
It is possible.
What if the personal nuke I have accidentally goes off while I'm on vacation far and away and the entire city dies?
Will people ride it off as a oopsy daisy and I be on my way after promising to take better care of my nukes?
Will I be allowed to have another nuke?
You realize this particular example borders slightly on the absurd for a few relatively 'obvious' reasons... still, I shall attempt to explain (but I repeat, I do NOT have all the answers, nor do I presume that what I say is necessarily accurate - though it should fit into the concept of TVP):
First off, we'd have to ascertain what caused the nuke to go off.
The entire situation would have to be examined using the scientific method.
Also, why would you want to create a nuclear device that has the potential to go off and endanger an entire city without taking proper security measures, shielding, etc.?
Why would you want to even make it in an area that is ill-equipped to take care of possible problems?
Have we learned nothing from past mistakes?
People would be provided with the necessary tools/technology/resources to ensure safety first and foremost, or you would work in an area that is properly equipped for that kind of device in the first place (if that happens to be your basement or whatnot, then hopefully you will be responsible enough to request necessary tools/technology/resources to ensure maximum safety for not just yourself but also the city before you even initiate the project).
If this was an accident, then there's no reason to think you would be prohibited from making another nuke... but uhm, would you happen to be so negligent to endanger entire populations AGAIN and therefore repeat the same mistakes?
Seriously, the entire Venus Project is based on the notion of exposing people to relevant general education, broadening their horizons and making them RESPONSIBLE for their own behavior in the process (very few people are today - in spite of so-called 'laws') that ensures safety (among other things) of others as much as themselves.
It almost seems as if you are actively seeking for a way to justify incarceration of an individual and that the general population is somehow 'unable' to 'govern themselves' without the rudimentary/outdated 'laws' currently in existence - or that you cannot possibly envision such a world to exist.
In a highly mechanized/technologically developed environment, you cannot rely on Humans alone to ensure safety precautions. Besides, making technology without planned obsolescence in mind and instilling as many fail-safes as needed would probably negate scenarios that you describe. Spectacular failures of technology today occur BECAUSE of planned obsolescence... and incidents where technology is designed not to break down and to INSURE safety has seen next to 0 problems arising - that said, risks are present either way, but in TVP, they would be even further minimized to levels where they simply wouldn't endanger population as we know it (like its doable now).
You are actively/intentionally projecting notions from the current system into a new one. This is exactly why a transitional period and re-education of the population is required - otherwise, it won't work as intended (and while I will agree that Humans have historically 'perverted' virtually every system to suit their own needs, that was mostly because the global population was NEVER exposed to the relevant general knowledge, nor were they encouraged to grow up in an environment to care for others that continuously promotes that behavior, or a ton of other factors that were never put in).
IMO, Constitutional Representative Democracy in itself is not a bad form of government, the founding fathers had the right idea.
However a lot of rules need to be re written IMO and lots of rules to prevent corruption need to be implemented at the start of the Constitution / Bill of Rights.
I can see this working during the transitional period where it would create a 'bridge' so that people would grow accustomed to completely new ideas and ways of thinking over time, but not in the long run. Any system featuring Humans in positions of power over the majority for long periods of time is heavily subject to corruption at some point or another, and before long, you end up with the same problems we have now because you are creating the sense of separation between people (social stratification).
To get rid of most forms of inequality or eradicating it entirely, social stratification in the above mentioned form shouldn't be allowed to foster/linger for long periods of time - which is why I said it probably should be temporary.
As I said, what you are proposing is an adequate solution for the transitional period to create enough awareness and practical implementations for eventual TVP, but not for the long run if you expect to solve existing problems permanently.
I personally don't trust a lot of machines to do the analysis of EVERYTHING and make the decisions.
I'm not speaking out of ignorance, as a computer programmer I know the limitations of machines / software / AI.
The fact that it's relatively easy to skew results / hack / twist a machine to get what you want is why I don't trust having machines make all decisions for us.
The best form of governance is machines being a tool to give factual evidence that can be independently corroborated and verified.
Using scientific methodology, variable scale experimentation, and refining of rules / laws along with more generalist education is what I think will help things out.
No one said that computers aren't prone to being skewed/hacked... but we are talking about a system that fundamentally eradicates the incentive for harmful behavior in the first place using education mostly and creates a different way of thinking/doing things.
When you look at why hacking occurs today... for some its basically a way for people to 'rebel' against the present system in one way or another... or to try and remove the notion that they are being 'controlled' (in essence, by leveling the playing field through THEM being the ones who control the situation).
Some might do it for the mere fun of it, but ask yourself, what type of behavior is responsible for that?
Look at the amount of viruses, trojans, etc. flowing around the web.
First off, a lot of the anti-virus companies are the ones who actually make them so they could entice people into getting their security programs, etc. (ensuring long term profits).
Many people who steal personal information and credit cards, do so for financial reason (money).
Other types of hackers basically hack numerous websites to test their security measures.
Look at how many times governments and individual websites were hacked and then INFORMED by the said hackers to tell them they need to implement better security?
So... not all forms of hacking are inherently 'bad'.
Like it or not, Humanity is relying more and more on technology.
It is up to us to accept this reality (because going backward is quite frankly a ridiculous proposal that doesn't make any sense) and try to create a world where we can use technology to improve all our lives and remove artificially imposed limitations.
But as I said, technology alone is not enough.
Human behavior needs to change. We can do that by changing the environment we live in that is there to improve everyone's lives and repair the damage done to the planet through mis-use of technology for the sake of profits - and also, actively exposing the entire population to relevant general education (by limiting information to people, you limit their perceptions and ways of thinking and are making them prone to being manipulated and used) and bringing social awareness up to date with our latest scientific knowledge.
And now I have to go, seeing how I have some other work to do (composing these rather lengthy replies is time consuming - but I also like doing it).
I can try replying to other posts in more detail when I get the time.