In response to Emma Goldman's essay, my main dispute is that it is simply incomplete as an argumentative essay. On the whole it lacks justification and she excludes voices of opposition. Furthermore she expounds on the theoretical and on that alone there is truth to what she says but she doesn't really even attempt to venture into the practical, other than to quarrel with Oscar Wilde's definition;

"...rather [it is] whether the scheme has vitality enough to leave the stagnant waters of the old, and build, as well as sustain, new life."

Not only is this unecessarily sensationalist but it fails to serve as a denotative description of what the word really means; she uses it to insinuate that 'existing conditions' are 'wrong or foolish', and that the new is the only acceptable conditions. This is logically absurd because under absolute anarchy or free communism, it would become the old at some point and become inherently 'wrong or foolish' or both. Practical is in reality a vague term that in any one person's mind is applied to something that is not overly tasking to bring about. In other words, it is both achievable and has an acceptable cost. But she wants to say that if it is something that aims to alter the existing conditions and is possible (at least theoretically) that irrespective of cost (seemingly) it is 'practical'.

Having understood her negative feelings about 'existing conditions' and utter faith in new ones, I find a contradiction in her thoughts on natural law:

"A natural law is that factor in man which asserts itself freely and spontaneously without any external force, in harmony with the requirements of nature."

and quoting Blackstone:

"Human laws are invalid, because they are contrary to the laws of nature."

She seems to be saying there is some kind of inherent truth or good or correctness in 'natural laws' which seem to be human impulses, drives, desires, etc. In other words biological forces are the only 'valid' ones, and 'external forces' are bad. But what are external forces but other humans or nature? Governments are still composed of individuals, who are driven by biological impulses. Where can she draw the line between action or thought that is the result of one's self, or society? Of course this brings up the nature/nurture debate but the question remains: how can one make a distinction between the forces of nature and the forces of the forces of nature? My main point though is to point out the lack of justification for this inherent correctness of nature and its expression in us, and our impulses. Just because unconscious forces of evolution made it, doesn't make it right. Mutations if you will, are mistakes. Most often they lead to the death of the organism or impairement, but they are absolutely necessary to survival. That means that our human form is only 'justified' temporarily, and as time changes, so must we. Change is good, but it is not true that the only good is change.

Human impulses can be incredibly destructive, the crusades as a case in point. The practice of rape and pillage in war and otherwise, greed, lust, other sins perhaps. Humans are not inherently evil, but they aren't inherently good either. We're a mix of both (if we wish to talk of good/evil).

My next question then is how do we protect ourselves from each other in a state of anarchy given these destructive qualities of humans? She seems to think they somehow disappear or are mitigated by anarchy:

"Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities."

She goes on to make a case that negative human behavior a result of govenments and that under the conditions of anarchy we simply won't have to worry much about them. Its interesting to note however, that she doubts our ability to confirm the inherent wickedness of human nature by not having any pure specimens to look at, and yet asserts the opposite claim (inherent goodness) in spite of the same lack of empirical data.

Without getting into the justification, I would simply assert that humans are a mix of qualities, and that they are expressed no matter what conditions they are in to varying degrees, and that we need a balance of liberty and control to maximize human growth. The question for her then is; given her strategy to protect humanity from institutions/groups, how does she plan on protecting us from individuals once they are gone?