Let's see...
preyer said:
is nudity common to where if a woman wanted to mow the grass without a shirt on people wouldn't even look twice at her?
Hmm. I've always thought there is something truly bizarre about our society's urge to legislate what people wear (or not, as the case may be). Why is there such a law as indecent exposure? And why do people get so worked up about women who breastfeed in public? Bizarre. But there are three good reasons I can think of why people should wear clothes most of the time: (1) climate -- if frostbite won't get you, then melanomas will; (2) hygiene -- if everyone went nude, I dont think I'd ever want to sit on a seat on public transport ever again; (3) consideration for others -- most of the time you just don't want to have to deal with people's dangly bits all over the place, and some people you don't want to see naked ever.
By and large, no. People in rural areas, and people who shoot targets for sport may have a legitimate reason to have guns, but most people don't. Personal protection is a load of hogwash. Packing a gun doesn't make you one tiny bit safer; it's just a feel-good substititute for the lack of any substantial effort to make communities safer.
what's the crime rate like? is there crime? what type of penal system, if any (remember, be realistic), is there?
Prison populations would be minimal. Sentencing people to prison would be an absolute last resort, in cases where it's clear that the only effective thing to do is remove an offender from society altogether. The whole notion of prisons as "punishment centers" would be done away with. Vengeance is not a proper goal for the judiciary of a civilized country. The money saved from doing away with all those prison places would go to preventive programs: better social services, better mental health care, and a good social safety net. The only way to truly lower the crime rate is to get people out of the cycle of poverty that breeds cynicism and criminality.
is there capital punishment?
Absolutely not. A civilized society does not sanction violence against its own citizens.
do people smoke? do drugs?
No, they don't. It's not because there is any possibility of them being thrown in jail for doing so, but because they are well educated about matters of public health (and everything else -- why didn't you include education in this little survey?). Public health programs would offer incentives for people to quit smoking. And by the way, the healthcare system would be well within its rights to do so, because it would be funded by the taxpayers, and preventable illnesses would be considered an unacceptable burden on the public purse.
is a sexual orgy considered vulgar, illegal, acceptable?
What consenting adults do behind closed doors would be nobody else's business. But in general, it would probably be considered irresponsible, given that its a high-risk behaviour (both emotionally and in terms of public health).
are there public executions?
See above. No civilized society sanctions violence against its own citizens.
do people eat meat or have their entire daily nutritional intake done some other way, like a pill or spell?
People would eat meat. As with any other business in this ideal society, abattoirs would be sensibly regulated and frequently inspected, so that every citizen can sit down to his steak and chips secure in the knowledge that the animal did not unduly suffer, and the pasturelands were not overgrazed to the point of causing environmental damage.
how many social classes/castes are there? is there even a poor class in the perfect world?
It's inevitable that some people in a society will be incapable of looking after themselves. It's the duty of a society to care for these people, so that they don't become an even greater burden. It's cheaper to provide basic subsistence to people in the community than it is to keep them in prison. It's cheaper to put people through school than through the legal system.
does marriage still survive? still allowed only one spouse? (particularly in fantasy.)
Marraige will still survive as the formal expression of commitment between two people. Otherwise, the details are unimportant.
what kind of gov't exists? democracy, monarchy, theocracy? socialized or capitalistic?
The government would be a socialised democracy -- one where the country is fairly evenly split between the public and private sector. The private sector would be subject to sensible regulation and couldn't rely on much government handouts and gladhanding (like so many big corporations do these days). The public sector would run on a non-profit basis (or subsidised by the taxpayer, where necessary), and would concentrate on providing essential services and infrastructure. It would do this either at cost, or in the case of healthcare and education, for free (i.e. fully subsidized from public funds).
Politics would become a profession in its own right, requiring its own degrees, internships, professional standards, and so on. No longer would it be what rich and influential people do when they want to get richer and more influential. It would be related more to the civil service than private business, so there would be no conflict of interest for politicians in their capacity as regulators. Voting would be compulsory (it's a duty, not a right), and based on a preferential voting system. Ballots would be pieces of paper with pencil marks on them. Recounts in closely fought contests would be automatic. The legal system would be common law based rather than constitutionally based, and there would be a strict seperation between politics and the judiciary (because it's the federal court's job to hold politicians to account).
what the necessity of maintaining a military? do they use it?
The necessity lies in border protection, fulfilling a countries obligations to UN missions, and so forth. Defence R&D, such as it is, would be focussed mostly on improving the efficiency of the military; e.g. effective and robust lo-tech gear would be favoured over hi-tech gadgetry. On current showing, it would not be based much on American methodology.
how are radically dissenting views handled?
People would shout the idiots down, if they had any sense at all. A good democracy relies on a well-informed public and a robust public debate -- not on pandering to extremists.
I already answered this.
in a perfect society where murder happens once every ten years, how likely is the police force liable to find the killer? is there a police force?
I find it impossible to speculate here -- I don't have the hard data.
are people ideally suited in your perfect world more towards an urban, rural, or mixed setting?
A viable society will have a good mix of both. In a way, the provision of services to rural communities is why you need a strong public sector. Private enterprise won't do it.
does it take a village to raise a child or just two caring parents?
Children are members of their society, the same as anyone else, and they should be socialised accordingly. In practice, this is going to mean that school carricula may have subjects that parents of certain persuasions won't agree with. Tough luck. Children are not personal possessions that you can treat as you choose.
how racially diverse is the perfect world?
I'd say not much, because there would be no barriers to interracial relationships. Any racial diversity that existed would fade within a few generations.
is there religion in the perfect world? (particularly sci-fi.)
No. It has been replaced by the striving after community, art, meaning, and what Socrates would have called "the examined life".
just curious as to what a 'perfect' sci-fi/fantasy world is realistically composed of.
You don't want a perfect world in a work of fiction, only the potential for a perfect world that your characters can strive after -- always desiring, never quite achieving. That's the nature of the human condition.