The Anarchist's Fakebook?

While reading Emma Goldman's essay on the nature of anarchism, I tried to understand anarchism from its own ideological perspective and not from my own pro-government stance. I found this incredibly difficult, perhaps because so many of the principles of anarchism seem unnatural to me.

I understand the anarchist distaste for government, because most governments are poorly formed, and all governments will eventually fail the people they serve. It seems so illogical, however, to completely disregard any form of government. Certainly, man needs freedom in order to flourish. But as we discussed at the beginning of the semester in the early writings of liberalism, nature is not a free state. In nature, humans are pitted against each other, too focused on survival to engage in the development of their minds. 

It seems particularly unlikely that humanity would be able to overcome its struggle for survival given the vehement opposition of anarchists to punishment for crime, and, indeed, to the very notion of crime. their argument that crime is a result of the imposition of society and government makes no sense at all to me. As long as humans desire to better their lives, they will take from others in order to achieve that goal.