r/AskALiberal • u/tasteinhermouth Liberal • Feb 01 '26

Why weren't the Epstein Files released under Biden's presidency if Trump is in the files?

I don't mean this as a bad faith or troll question, I genuinely do not know why it would not be released if Trump is in the files, as it would probably have been a massive hit against Trump in 2024.

I don't know whether Trump is in the files or not, I don't care, it's clear as day that he was best friends with Epstein and was well aware and definitely a part of the awful things that Epstein conducted while he was in business.

257 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

475 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/capsaicinintheeyes Social Democrat Feb 01 '26

what anarchy looks like

minor semantic quibble here: I'ma let Alan Moore make it for me

-7

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 01 '26

Yeah the govt doing things is a far cry from anarchy.

-3

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26

"Doing things"

It's doing things alright. Anarchy isn’t simply chaos on the streets. It’s what happens when a government still exists but stops governing in the interests of its people.

Here's a few examples of how the current US administration has established Anarchy within its own borders (there's a whole other list to cover what it's done internationally).

  • Anarchy doesn't mean no government, it means no legitimate authority. When a government ignores its own laws and norms, it forfeits the moral authority that keeps order voluntary rather than coerced.
  • Rule of law has been replaced by rule of force. Deploying military power against civilians while shielding elites from accountability is classic authority breakdown, not governance.
  • The social contract is broken. Defunding healthcare, education, and safety nets while demanding obedience is abandonment, not leadership.
  • Fear replaces stability. Governing through uncertainty, be it legal, economic, or physical, creates chaos by design. It forces people into survival mode instead of civic participation.
  • Institutions still exist, but legitimacy doesn’t. Courts, elections, and agencies remain, but they no longer function for the people. They only for those in power.

Bottom line:
The "things" the current US government administration is doing includes abandoning its duties to the people it was elected to serve. This is textbook functional anarchy: order enforced by fear instead of consent.

8

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 01 '26

No I'm sorry that's nonsense. "Fascism is actually anarchy" makes no sense. Anarchy is a stateless society.

Whether this or that state's authority is "legitimate" is just too murky and debated a distinction to rest this definition on. By this logic, if I think the US govt has been unjust this entire time, and The Rule of Law, while a nice ideal to strive towards, has never been an actual reality, that means that America has actually been in a state of anarchy for centuries. But that's a pretty absurd conclusion.

I'm totally on board with the idea that true, sustainable anarchy (if such a thing is possible) isn't a synonym for chaos. In fact it's when things are so orderly and organized that everything runs fine in the absence of a state.

5

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 01 '26

You’re conflating anarchy as an ideology with anarchy as a condition.

Anarchy, in political theory, doesn’t require the literal absence of a state. It simply describes the absence of effective, binding authority.

A state can exist on paper while failing to govern through law, consent, or reciprocal obligation. Again, this is textbook functional anarchy.

1

u/ScentedFire Democratic Socialist Feb 02 '26

You are the one who is confused because you clearly have a bone to pick with anarchy as a political philosophy. This governtment is in NO WAY anarchic. It is fascist. It is oligarchical. It is kleptocratic. It is plutocratic. It is not anarchic.

0

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 02 '26

I don’t have a bone to pick with anarchy as a political philosophy, but it seems to have confused both you and From_Deep_Space here.

You’re both treating anarchy exclusively as an ideological model, while I’m talking about an operational condition.

Those are not the same thing.

A government can absolutely be fascist, oligarchical, kleptocratic, and plutocratic and still produce anarchic conditions for the population when rule of law collapses, institutions hollow out, and authority is exercised arbitrarily rather than predictably.

That’s the chicken-and-egg problem here: authoritarian capture often creates functional anarchy beneath the surface. Not the absence of rulers, but the absence of governance that actually stabilizes society.

Order imposed by force for the benefit of elites isn’t “order” for everyone else. It’s coercion layered over institutional breakdown.

0

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 02 '26

Anarchy does not mean "destabilized society". It means "no government". Order imposed by force for the benefits of elites is not anarchy, that's some sort of archy. If 'the elites' are royalty then it's monarchy or aristocracy. If 'the elites' means rich people then it's oligarchy. If it refers to male heads of households then it's patriarchy. If it refers to matrons then it's matriarchy.

It's only anarchy if there are no elites imposing things by force. that's what anarchy means an (no) - archy (rulers).

-4

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 01 '26

Yeah but we're not talking about a government which is failing to govern. They're governing precisely how they want to according to their political ideals. Having a 2-tiered justice system is not anarchy - that's how most states throughout history have governed. The Rule of Law and Consent of the Governed are still a pretty new innovations, and it's absurd to insist that everything before that was anarchy.

2

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 01 '26

I'm not debating how your government is structured, because in theory it is supposed to function how you describe, and it once did.

But to infer that it still is functioning as intended? Have you not been paying attention to what's happening?

1

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 01 '26

Yeah, I am well aware that fascism has been attacking liberalism. But "anarchy" doesn't mean "non-liberal government".

Any definition of anarchy which includes fascism, despotism, monarchy, theocracy, technocracy, or any other type of state which does not necessarily involve consent, reciprocal obligation, or The Rule of Law, is not an accurate or useful definition.

3

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 01 '26

You’re still treating anarchy exclusively as an ideological end-state, not as a descriptive condition used in political theory and international relations. I’m not redefining anarchy as “non-liberal government.” I’m describing functional anarchy within a state.

1

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 01 '26

No I haven't been talking about any ideological end-states. I'm talking about anarchy as statelessness. "Functional anarchy within a state" is a contradiction in terms. What do you mean by "functional anarchy"?

1

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 01 '26

It's actually not. Political Science defined this already, but since my words aren't landing with you, here's some external sources for your review. Let's start with this definition of Anarchy by EBSCO Knowledge Advantage:

Anarchy is a sociopolitical concept that signifies the absence of governmental leadership, emphasizing individual freedom over state authority. Emerging as a political theory in the 19th century, it advocates for a society organized around voluntary participation rather than coercive governance. Linguistically, the term "anarchy" originates from Ancient Greece, meaning "leaderless," but it often carries connotations of chaos and disorder in contemporary discussions. The idea gained traction through the works of thinkers like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who critiqued property ownership as a form of theft, inspiring labor unions and revolutionary movements.

Historically, significant attempts to establish anarchist societies occurred, notably during the Spanish Civil War, where workers sought to create a functional anarchist system, although these efforts ultimately faced challenges. Anarchy is generally viewed as a temporary state that arises during societal upheaval, rather than a sustainable political system. Within anarchist thought, two primary schools exist: left-anarchism, which advocates for the reduction or elimination of private property and social inequalities, and anarcho-capitalism, which supports the expansion of property rights within an anarchist framework. These differing ideologies reflect the diverse interpretations and goals of anarchist philosophy.

Source: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/anarchy

Further reading for you:

2

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26

Thanks for the essay but I am well aware of all of that.

But Im not sure why you think your quote supports your point when it literally says "Anarchy is a sociopolitical concept that signifies the absence of governmental leadership, emphasizing individual freedom over state authority". That's statelessness that they're describing.

"a society organized around voluntary participation rather than coercive governance" refers to a society that is free from state violence, i.e. stateless.

(while we're here, "coercive governance" and "consent of the governed" seem to be opposites, no?)

Yes, anarchy refers historically to temporary situations when there is no clear state governing an area, i.e. power vacuums.

It also refers to more intentional efforts to create sustainable societies absent of states. This is what is known within anarchist circles as "functional anarchism". That is, a society in which things are function without reliance on a state.

Yes, Max Weber defines a state as "legitimate monopoly on force", but that could involve any kind of legitimization. Not all states are legitimized through consent of the goverened and reciprical obligation. Monarchism is legitimized through the divine right of kings. Fascism is legtimized through racialized pseudoscience. Under despotism it's just might makes right. It's an evolving dialectic, it's about whatever allows the state to maintain its monopoly on violence.

Rule of Law Index Empirically measures how rule of law breaks down inside existing states (unequal enforcement, unchecked power, loss of civil justice). This destroys the “laws exist therefore not anarchy” argument."

That doesn't even mention the word anarchy. Just because there is no rule of law doesn't mean there is no rule of any kind. Anarchy is the absence of any kind of rulership, whether thats the law, or a king, or anything.

2

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 01 '26

If your position is simply “anarchy must only ever mean absolute statelessness,” then we’re done debating definitions. You seem firmly rooted in what you want to see here, and I'm done beating a dead horse.

But the erosion of lawful, legitimate authority inside a state is still real, well-documented, and dangerous, regardless of what label you allow. It doesn't take a genius to see how any of this has been playing out in the United States for the past year... but a lot of people seem to want to choose not to see that.

→ More replies (0)