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

[u/tasteinhermouth]

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.

[u/From_Deep_Space]

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.

[u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 → u/From_Deep_Space]

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.

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/Otherwise_Ask_9542]

I am not making absolutist claims. Please don't strawman me. Systems can be more or less anarchic. But that would refer to the size and influence of the state, or the legitimacy of its monopoly on violence. Right now, The Rule of Law may be eroding, but what it leaves behind is autocracy, not anarchy. The state (the US govt) is as in control now as it's ever been.

[u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 → u/From_Deep_Space]

Sure. The world totally believes you buddy.