You encourage, not demand, or force.
You encourage, not demand, or force.
"It is about a planned economy and wealth redistribution."
Not like any planned economy you know of. The people decide themselves what gets produced, while science determines how. See this article for more on that.
"And these democratic decisions, how would they be enforced. What if 40% of the people disagree, and start disobeying? What if just 1% disagree, can they be forced to comply? (with bullets)"
You should probably read a little more in depth about the subject, rather than just the quick summaries as it's easy to misinterpret some things. The vast majority of these "democratic" decisions would what I mentioned before, people deciding what is to be produced, and they do this simply by choosing what to consume in the first place, so there is no way to "disobey" in the sense you are thinking about. About the only way someone could "disobey" is if they were working as part of the production-distribution chain and were not doing their job, in which case the reason would be investigated and if it couldn't be fixed right away then they would be replaced, simple as that. The rest of these "democratic" decisions would be things like "what should the flag look like?" so really there is nothing to enforce.
"What if I don't want to control my technology scientifically. Suppose I don't care about science, or maybe I believe in a different scientific method. What would such a system have to offer to me."
First of all, there are no different scientific methods, just the one. Perhaps you are thinking about issues where there might be two competing scientific theories, neither of which have proven themselves above the other? This wouldn't really affect the economy much, because in what needs to be done, there are no such issues. On the forefront of science however, there are plenty, and systems relying on such things simply wouldn't be used unless and until the correct answer could be arrived at with certainty.
Second, there is no private property in Technocracy, so you would "have" no technology with which to control however you choose. You may work in a position that you are qualified for that involves operating said technology, but if you do not do so according to clearly defined scientific measures, then the problem is investigated and dealt with as I mentioned before. But even this short description can be misleading if you don't know more about how this works. Suppose you are thinking that you want to drive around the country in an RV, does that have to be done scientifically too? Where you drive and when, no. How you drive, well yes, for safety reasons. It all comes down to the separation of technical and objective issues from subjective ones, much like how was discussed in the Technocracy Comparative article I linked to above. Technocracy does not interfere with your subjective choices in how to live your life. Objective issues however affect others and need to be done a certain way. You could not, for instance, decide to drive that RV into buildings or through areas where there is pedestrian traffic only, just like today.
So what does it have to offer you? Just the highest standard of living possible on the planet in terms of consuming power, coupled with the highest degree of freedom possible in how to live your life and use that consuming power. Plus all the other goodies.
I *wish* government was becoming more technocratic, given the original meaning of the term.
But of course economics makes the world go round, right? And it's far too late to stop this multi-billion dollar locomotive now. Too bad, because I'd love a service like this, and for my TV, radio, and Internet to be free of stupid ads once and for all.