In my opinion, Automated Anarcho-Socialism is one answer to the majority of the worlds problems, although it is not perfect, but would be much better than what we have now.
Within today's society, capitalism simply creates scarcity and competition as a way to move the human race in progression. This however, creates many problems, such as starvation, homelessness, increased crime, profiteering/exploitation, in some ways is counterproductive to humanities scientific progression, etc.
And furthermore, the concept of government that consists of humans, or other sentient life forms, is highly flawed, inefficient, and can cause much more harm than good to a society. (Examples: Hitlers Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Russia, Mao Zedong's Communist China, and also a few things that are in U.S. government such as the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the power of taxation, and many other legislation and examples in history).
Government is inherently evil for a couple reasons. 1: Government attracts corruptible people simply do to it's nature of power, and is able to give others that are already corrupt to use it as an instrument of their own agenda, which are the ones that do part of the corrupting.
And 2: even if all members of government were good at heart and were rational, the only way to enforce laws would be to use law enforcement officers, which are able to do immoral things and have shown to do so, thus making government immoral at its foundation.
If the system of Automated Anarcho-Socialism was implemented, crime would go down dramatically, simply due to the fact all people would have access to the necessities and comforts of life, thus people would no longer starve, no one would be homeless, no one would have to struggle day to day, education would be more efficient, thus people can better themselves, and people can do the things they like and progress humanity technologically and ecologically (generally speaking).
And as for the other people that would have metal illnesses and disorders that would make them commit crimes or just need mental help in general, there can be programs created to help those people.
But, if there are still people that cannot control their anger and lash out with violence, there can of course be defensive classes of all sorts that teach different types of hand to hand combat, knife combat, firearm safety and efficiency training, etc. to address this problem.
As I said, it's not perfect, but it is much better than what we have now.
In the next decades more and more jobs will be taken over by machines. Which means that most people will lose their job.
That will result in an extremely high productivity and and a fall in purchasing power.
In essence, this means that most people won't be able to buy the super-abundant products manufactured by the machines.
The only way out of this dilemma will be a post-scarcity or resource based economy as proposed by the Venus Project.
Without private property resources will be consumed without creating additional value. If a person does not own the products of effort then products will not be produced. For example, a small nut tree is growing it could be left along to feed many people for many years, but since this small tree is not private property it has more value today, as fire wood.
Automated Anarcho-Socialism is, in effect, the Kowloon Walled City, but with running water. Gang warfare would run rampant, guys like me would be preying on sane, normal people, and people, their needs being met, would go around exercising power and control over each other. In fact, the gangs formed to exercise power and control would be the government. It would be like the Star Trek TOS episode "A Piece of the Action" in real life.
On to Dusty's argument.
Capitalism encourages competition. If I were in a socialist country, I'd perceive no need to make scientific advances, as I'd be treated the same as before. In a capitalist country, I can sell my invention to the highest bidder, maybe take a job with a good salary in their R&D.
A legislative body made of humans is the only way to go. Sure, it's flawed, but it still beats gang warfare.
If Anarcho-Socialism was implemented, there would be no crime because there would be no laws.
Hey, now the gangs can cut down on collateral damage because they can now aim accurately.
In short, this is a horrific idea, and should only be done if the denizens aren't human, because human nature craves hierarchy, and the aforementioned gangs would create one. Sure, it holds the moral high ground, but functionally, it would collapse spectacularly.
If we have machines run everything then humans will just be like passive robots receiving instructions and just passively implementing them.
Eventually something would go wrong, because humans had to program it in the first place and nobody is perfect. We need to learn how to upgrade ourselves, not just build smarter and smarter machines to the point where we lose our understanding of how they work.
Fresco/Meadows believe that increasing automation will diminish capital as a way to allocate desirably. But there is no reason to suppose the human worker economy wouldn't recenter to other activities. They also believe that recession amid an abundance of production illustrates that capital does not reflect that there are plenty of resources. However, recessions can reflect the wasteful exploitation of resources, so it is unsurprising during recessions to see wide availability of products that marginally fewer people can afford. Relatedly, this actually supports the idea that automation would improve capital as a solution. If we believe that automation would better manage resources in an anarcho-socialist society, then it should also better manage them in a capital based economic system. Don't get me wrong--I am not in favor of unrestricted capital. I just find Fresco/Meadows' position to be intellectually lazy.
Reasonably regulated capital is capable of producing a situation where resource management is better and human workers are freer to engage in the utopian-like activities discussed by Fresco/Meadows. In such a situation where products were much lower cost, human workers would not suddenly stop wanting things and wanting to engage in activity. The human worker economy would adapt for the new ways in which human endeavors could be allocated, and there would be exchange. In an automated anarcho-socialism, it's unrealistic to believe that humans wouldn't engage in exchange based on their varying skills--I believe the only difference (absent mechanical oppression) between the systems is private ownership of the automated apparatus. This introduces a need to regulate that ownership, and it leaves one class of people as participants in a human worker economy while a small group of people is supported by automated production, and this could pose some problems in terms of influence on any governmental system. The anarcho-socialist would experience a similar division without private ownership of the producing apparatus.
It is also unclear that anarcho-socialism could solve other problems discussed by Fresco/Meadows. Conflict over resources does not necessarily end simply because of the internal means of distribution--different hives of people could still fight over resources if their machine overlords decided that was most efficient. In any case, already-existing human interests have decreased violence to historic lows--despite the focus of the media on violence when it occurs, all kinds of violence are at astonishingly low rates compared to any other time in history, and generally speaking the people of each era in history have been able to make that same comparison between themselves and previous eras. This has been driven by human interest, not by rising above human interests.
In short, this challenges "legitimacy" because any answer that requires a broad rewrite of existing rights systems should offer major improvements that could not be obtained within those existing rights systems. Automated anarcho-socialism does not appear to do that or to be necessary for continuing other positive trends.
Furthermore, I got 99 problems but capitalism ain't one isn't an answer to the "majority" of the "world's" problems, whatever that even means.