Episode 128: MAGA's Meaning, Epstein's Secrets, China 2.0, and the Morality of Legal Fees

This week on the Latter Day Lens, Matt, Shawn, and Marc dive into a whirlwind of topics, from economic theory and political landscapes to the legal system. Get ready for lively debate and unexpected agreements!

00:01 - 01:00: Kicking Off with Reenactments and Ribbing

The episode opens with Matt introducing Marc as "a guy that voted for Trump," leading into a light-hearted discussion about Marc's Revolutionary War reenactment experience. Matt and Shawn playfully contrast Marc's discipline with Matt's own rebellious nature.

01:00 - 08:48: The Mailbag - Adam Smith's Invisible Hand & Bidets

The hosts address a listener's email challenging Shawn's interpretation of Adam Smith's "invisible hand." While Shawn humbly accepts the historical nuance, he maintains the concept's modern relevance, arguing it motivates producers to provide value. This segues into a humorous tangent about Matt's impulse purchases, including a bidet, prompting a quick topic change.

08:48 - 21:50: The Thought Provoker - Defining "Make America Great Again"

Matt introduces a New York Times opinion piece by Peter Baker, suggesting Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" points to the 1870-1913 era.

• Shawn argues "MAGA" is an intentionally undefined "gimmick."
• Matt posits the era's minimal regulation and high tariffs would appeal to Trump as a capitalist.
• Marc believes "MAGA" signifies a return to a "moral past."
• The discussion expands to whether Trump is a true conservative, with Shawn distinguishing between "reactionism" and "conservatism." Marc agrees with this distinction.
• Matt challenges the idea of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a conservative organization, citing its history of radical change.

21:50 - 32:58: China Shock 2.0 and Tariffs

The hosts discuss economists David Autor and Gordon Hanson's warning about "China Shock 2.0," where China could surpass the US in innovative sectors.

• Matt questions if US tariffs, often politically motivated, inadvertently help China gain a future advantage.
• Shawn suggests tariffs aim for better trade deals.
• Marc expresses little concern for "China Shock 2.0," relying on the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, leading to a humorous debate on the scriptural definition of "soon."

32:58 - 44:54: The Jeffrey Epstein Files

The conversation turns to the controversial Jeffrey Epstein files.

• Matt surprisingly argues against releasing all files (e.g., child pornography) to protect victims, believing law enforcement would have already prosecuted any implicated individuals. He trusts the FBI.
• Shawn and Marc strongly disagree, advocating for full transparency to expose "secret combinations" and ensure justice, expressing skepticism about Epstein's death and alleged cover-ups.
• The debate highlights contrasting views on transparency and the legal system.

44:54 - 54:10: The Big Question - Lawyers, Conflict, and Latter-day Lens Principles

The episode concludes with a "big question" inspired by Alma 10 and 11 on lawyers profiting from societal conflict.

• Matt asks if the current legal system, which incentivizes conflict, is flawed. He proposes alternatives:
  • Lawyers not charging fees.
  • Community councils resolving disputes.
  • A system like the Church's disciplinary councils, where randomly assigned individuals defend both sides.
• Marc agrees the current system encourages litigation.
• Shawn, initially skeptical, is eventually convinced by Matt's arguments, particularly the alternati

Transcript

Matt (00:01.594)
Hey everybody and welcome to the Latter Day Lens. I'm your host Matt and with me today is Sean and our ever-loving Trump supporter Mark is with us. Is that a good way Mark? Ever-loving Trump supporter? No.

Marc (00:12.494)
no, I would say a guy that voted for Trump.

Matt (00:17.752)
there we go. And our guy that voted for Trump, Mark, is with us today. Mark, I have been waiting to hear ever since we last recorded with you about the encampment at the Sarah Park in Orem.

Shawn (00:21.523)
Ha ha ha!

Marc (00:30.594)
Yes, I noticed how both of you did not show up.

Matt (00:34.182)
But I watched with great anticipation all of your social media channels to see photos and descriptions and it looked like you had a lot of fun in an anti-America kind of way.

Shawn (00:35.989)
You

Marc (00:47.008)
Well, I mean, it's not anti-America. It's just pro-God's anointed king and sovereign, His Gracious Majesty King George III.

Matt (00:52.697)
I'm

Matt (00:56.198)
What was the best part of the Sarah event?

Marc (01:02.174)
one of our guys was not doing good with drill. It was very sloppy. And, in our group, you, you don't just join and you're in, you kind of have to pass a test to go from recruit to private. And he, he was a private, but he was just sloppy. And the Sergeant who's kind of the head of our group finally pulled him aside and I barely heard it because it was private, but he said, how did you make private? And that just thrilled me because I didn't get anything like that.

Matt (01:15.161)
Right.

Matt (01:28.164)
You

Shawn (01:29.311)
Ha ha!

Marc (01:32.045)
I had a good time.

Matt (01:33.126)
Yeah, well I'm sure you're a great private. I've heard that in the military you can lose rank. Can you lose rank in the dress-up military? I don't know the rest. Wait, wait, in the reenactment military.

Marc (01:46.869)
in the recreated 33rd? Sure, assume you could get dropped if you want from private to recruit again.

Matt (01:54.286)
Right? Like if you if you look sloppy, right? If you're because my son who's in the military, it drives him crazy. If people in his unit are sloppy in their dress, and they're not precise in that where they're supposed to be marching and things like that.

Marc (02:07.201)
Yeah, I feel the same way.

Matt (02:10.372)
I like it. Sean, what did you do for 4th of July? In California you probably like waved the Mexican flag and shouted slogans of anti-American slogans.

Shawn (02:19.413)
Well, well as as mark was What

Marc (02:24.09)
You will not replace us. Wait no, you will not deport us.

Matt (02:26.042)
Ha ha ha ha

Shawn (02:29.557)
Well, as Mark was doing his thing, I considered Matt in that situation was like, man, Matt is the absolute opposite. If someone asked him to march in a certain way, in a certain order, he'll just do the opposite. There's no way Matt would thrive in that situation. There's no way.

Matt (02:43.27)
There's no way. Recently, the Tabernacle Choir had their 5,000th episode of Music and the Spoken Word, and I was invited to go to this special event, which I didn't attend. But I was told this story of like how they said, okay, everybody who's here, who's ever been a member of the Tabernacle Choir, come up and we're gonna sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic. And I thought to myself as this person was telling the story, if I was there, I 100 % would have...

walked up with the choir as a former member of the choir and not been able to sing the right things and not been able to do the right things and that have been like when were you in the choir again and I'd have been like shh shh follow mac wilberg do what he says to do yeah yeah that's 100 % what I would do at a at an event like that I would get demoted from private to re enlisted no resident no that's right

Shawn (03:27.637)
Yeah, I can see you doing that. Yeah.

Shawn (03:32.415)
You're a rebel.

Marc (03:35.692)
A citizen probably.

Matt (03:42.682)
All right, let's get to the mailbag because this particular listener, we actually had a number of items in the mailbag that followed a similar theme, but I chose this one in particular because.

Shawn (03:52.157)
I know why you chose this one because your favorite topic is Adam Smith, the invisible hand. I love you. You love that top.

Matt (03:56.614)
Yeah, and this listener feels like Sean is not using the word appropriately. So Sean, this listener says you need clarification on what the invisible hand really is. Now, Sean, you've read the Wealth of Nations, right? Okay, I have not. So I don't know if this listener is right or not, but they said he only uses the phrase once in Wealth of Nations.

Shawn (04:10.057)
I'll take it. I'll take it, humbly.

Yeah, I have.

Matt (04:23.866)
And was not to say that the power of demand is a universal system of self-correction. It was a nuanced warning against mercantilism. I don't know what that means. And the invisible hand only influences a transaction itself, not the harmful or helpful externalities of production or consumption. That idea was also formulated before the invention of modern advertising.

or very complicated consumer products like Roundup. think Smith would agree that because producers have no economic motivation to not invisibly harm consumers and consumers have no economic motivation to not harm other consumers, banning harmful substances from production is a perfectly legitimate part of the government's responsibility to provide for the public safety. So there, Sean.

Shawn (05:13.971)
I mean, I would not look, I'll humbly take the correction, but I think there's one big misunderstanding that's rooted in their statement. I maybe don't care as much about the original intent or understanding of that phrase. I think it applies modernly and more appropriately. Like he says, the bigger misunderstanding is rooted in that statement that the listener made. Producers have no economic motivation not to invisibly harm consumers and consumers have no economic

Motivation to not harm other consumers that that is actually according to this idea of the invisible hand That's the opposite the invisible hand says exactly that mad if I want what you have to offer I have to If I want your money or your patronage, I have to provide something of value I can't harm you because it will go away. You will not be my customer You will not get give to me that which I seek for very long if I harm you

So the idea is that this invisible, there is motivation to not harm invisibly. There is.

Matt (06:20.386)
I see the motivation, Sean, is that you are one of these advertisers that they talk about ruining the free market and you defend the free market while destroying it at the same time. You're the very reason I can't make an informed choice because you put together such beautiful marketing that makes me just want to purchase something that I have no need to purchase.

Shawn (06:27.445)
You

Shawn (06:42.653)
You gave last week the most confusing definition of propaganda and I'm afraid I don't think you understand advertising either. So I think you understand propaganda, but I don't think you understand advertising, but that's okay.

Matt (06:50.39)
yeah, I buy some Amazon Prime Day happened not too long ago, and I bought a bidet. And I bought a device to measure my blood pressure. And I bought a number of other things I didn't need to buy because I don't know was like a good deal. It was on sale. So I don't know like what the invisible hand would say about that. But I bought a whole bunch of things I regretted after purchasing them. And I blame people like Sean.

Shawn (07:00.181)
You

Ha

Shawn (07:18.463)
There you go. So you blame other people for you seeking after your wants and desires and knowingly going into some purchases. You can't blame other people for that, Matt. You can't blame advertising. You can't blame anything. You can blame you being bored and scrolling on your phone and deciding to make some purchases.

Matt (07:20.71)
you

Matt (07:31.078)
I'm

But I will tell listeners, if you have not purchased a bidet for yourself, you really owe it to yourself to purchase one of these toilet seat bidets.

Shawn (07:40.501)
man, let's pivot off of that topic.

Marc (07:44.61)
I actually, before we pivot, I used one once and didn't really do it for me.

Matt (07:50.561)
well.

Marc (07:52.202)
I needed more pressure. I'd like to in there and the day just kind of it stayed in the outer courtyard. I needed in the holy volleys.

Matt (07:53.862)
You

Shawn (07:55.796)
Wow.

Matt (07:56.486)
I'll put a link in the show notes for interested listeners, but this bidet, I'm telling you, it's amazing. Yeah, you can change the, it's just got a little knob on it. You just decide how much power you want, how much pressure.

Shawn (08:02.165)
Hey, not the...

Marc (08:07.432)
Is it powerful or is it just kind of a...

Shawn (08:13.119)
All right, so this being such a stupid conversation, I'm gonna go back and give a lot of credit to the listener who wrote in because there is one thing they did say that is really actually quite true and I 100 % agree with and I appreciate the correction. Let's see, what was it? It's not a... it's not a... No, let's see, that the power of demand is a universal system of self-correction. I totally agree.

Matt (08:32.472)
Externality.

Marc (08:38.345)
I feel that the invisible hand is guiding us back to the bidet discussion,

Matt (08:40.274)
okay.

Shawn (08:40.785)
I don't know, mean hats off to him and I just needed to quickly pivot away from that stupid discussion you guys are just having.

Shawn (08:49.929)
Hehehehehe

Matt (08:51.85)
All right, we'll move on to the thought provoker. Peter Baker. know that none of you read the New York Times as often as I do. Peter Baker is a great reporter and he's followed the Trump administration since 2017, maybe 2016. And he does great reporting. Anyhow.

Shawn (09:08.095)
But by the way, I don't know if this is great reporting. This is really a big time. This is a propaganda piece. This really is. It's a group. Okay. It's. It's a great question, but it is an opinion slash propaganda piece, but it's a great question.

Matt (09:12.706)
No, is, this is, yeah, this is not, this is not reporting, but this is just like, it's like what an opinion piece or something like that. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So in this article he writes in the New York times, he talks about the various various policies that are being rolled back by the Trump administration. He argues that classic conservatism resists dramatic changes to society.

but Trump is doing more than resisting change. He's actively trying to roll back the clock to a previous era. And so in this article, he's trying to figure out like, what is the perfect time for Donald Trump? And he argues that when Trump says, make America great again, he's referring to the period from 1870 to 1913, which would be before the progressive era. He really likes McKinley. So my question is,

for people of you, because I imagine you guys know the MAGA crowd better than I do. What is the time period that MAGA wants us to return to? And is that really conservative? And is that consistent with the latter day lens? When they say make America great again, what is the great time period that they want us to go back to?

Shawn (10:23.765)
Matt, I really love your question here. Good job for like posing this because it makes you think, right? All day long, we're pushed with make America great again from this presidency in this and they've never defined that ever really. I don't know. Maybe Mark, you can, you can pinpoint some things that defines that, but they've never defined it. It's literally just a gimmick. In fact, they would be really unwise. I think if they ever were like, okay, what we mean specifically is the, era.

Right, because every area, whether it was the 50s, the 80s, or what this guy says, the 1870s, obviously, they're such good and bad in all of those areas. And so it would be such a mistake for them to be like, well, we mean it needs to get back to this. Like if they said, we need to get back to the 50s, right? Post World War II, were American global dominance. Manufacturing was strong in the middle class. Traditional gender roles and nuclear families. And actually Christianity was like the center of the whole of society.

Matt (10:52.772)
the 1870s.

Shawn (11:18.303)
But there was also racial segregation in full effect, Like women even had limited rights. And it was a really dangerous and oppressed place for LGBTQ people. So there's pros and cons, so they'd be really unwise to attach an exact date, don't you think?

Matt (11:20.731)
Mm-hmm.

Matt (11:34.736)
think the only people happy about the 1870s would be the robber barons. Nobody else liked the 1870s. That's why the progressive movement was so successful. Mark, Mark!

Shawn (11:43.325)
Yeah, so they'd be dumb to actually do that. They don't, I don't think they mean, it's just a gimmick. They don't, you don't believe that they're actually, MAGA means go back to 1870s. You don't believe that, that they think that. It does not.

Matt (11:52.687)
I think actually it does for Trump. But Mark, I think it does. Yeah, if you're Donald Trump, 1870s is like the perfect time for somebody like him.

Shawn (12:00.981)
Why? You have to give your reasoning now. I gave you all the points of the 1950s. Now, why the 1870s?

Matt (12:03.398)
Yeah, but if you're if you're a wealthy capitalist, the 1870s is the period of time where you had the least amount of government regulation of industry and business. You had the most protectionism of trade. So there were high tariffs. Most things were made in America. And then you had this like fertile United States territory that you could just build and build and build because there's the Westward expansion that's happening at that time period like

If you're Donald Trump and you look at that time period, you're like, it could not have been better for someone like me than that period of time.

Shawn (12:38.719)
So you believe that Donald Trump and the movement of MAGA literally means economic freedom and prosperity and centralization. That's what you think they mean.

Matt (12:48.824)
I think that Donald Trump thinks in terms of what it's best for him. And I don't think he cares what anybody else thinks by the term MAGA, but I think that, this guy, it's a compelling case that Trump would love to go back to the pre-progressive era United States.

Shawn (13:03.815)
Okay, good. All right, what does Mark say?

Marc (13:06.882)
boy, several things. First thought, I don't think it's fair to say Trump does everything just for his own benefit because he's lost a lot of personal wealth and, and fortune through being president. And if he really was a self-centered fella, he probably would not have gone the second time. He just would have said, this is too much. They won. Let him have it. I'm done. I quit. I don't care.

point on that but as far as when was America great I would say there was about five minutes after George Washington was inaugurated that we were to be good and Alexander Hamilton came in and that was the end of that. Also I could hear that my birds are making it onto the microphone I apologize. I'd close the door but then it gets so hot in this little closet that I've stuffed myself in.

Matt (13:42.406)
Hahahaha

Shawn (13:46.997)
hahahaha

Shawn (13:52.181)
That's okay.

Matt (13:52.954)
No, there is fine.

Matt (13:58.65)
Mark, would you consider yourself MAGA, Make America Great Again?

Marc (14:03.96)
I don't know what you mean by that, so...

Matt (14:06.416)
Well, do you have one of those hats? Would you wear one of those hats?

Marc (14:09.99)
Well, would a lot of people have that hat and does that mean they're mag-? Cause... it's a hat!

Shawn (14:14.853)
Yes, that means they're MAGA. Yes, it does. Because if you're going to wear someone's banner or someone's brand, you are representing it. You are promoting it.

Matt (14:15.543)
Well-

Marc (14:22.266)
that was the have one not do I wear it

Matt (14:26.134)
well, so the I think though, Mark, you would understand MAGA way better than I would. So like the fact that you see some nuance there that I don't see is important to me. So what do you think MAGA means when they say make America great again? Are they saying, let's go to a certain period of time? Or are they saying, let's are there's values of the past? Or are they saying America's industrial path? Like what is it that that means?

Marc (14:51.281)
Well, I'd say that points to Sean on this too, specify it ruins it by their hand because for me, if I really was going to start chanting MAGA, my intention would be a moral pass that we have left as we've embraced the sexual revolution. That's my great B sexual revolution thing economically. I don't know. I don't hate the early nineties. George HW Bush did us pretty good as you Dr. mentioned.

Matt (15:09.584)
Mm-hmm.

Matt (15:18.786)
I do love him.

Marc (15:21.708)
and you know socially slavery let's bring or no sorry let me restart that

Matt (15:31.046)
Let me ask you this. When Trump says so-and-so is not MAGA, are there really people... I don't know what he means by this stuff.

Shawn (15:31.181)
jeez.

Marc (15:40.206)
I don't think anyone does. This is where Trump does excel, is being the showman and knowing what will sell. By not being defined, it really is a very encompassing movement, so there might be some of the extremist people who are like, yeah, Jim Crow. But that's not a fair statement to make that, I guess that's MAGA. But they might use the phrase, so it works for them that some votes as well as people just say, sex revolution, that's a-

Shawn (15:45.333)
It's propaganda.

Shawn (16:09.449)
Matt, it's very successful use of propaganda. I wouldn't say branding so much because in branding, you really do need to have a defined message and a story that people attach to. And to your point in this question, I don't think they've done that. They purposely haven't done that. So I think it's really a propaganda tool, an effective use of propaganda. Because Matt, wouldn't you say, tell me if you think this is true, you being our political scientist here. I've read that there's,

Matt (16:26.426)
Mm.

Matt (16:37.657)
Marcus

Shawn (16:39.649)
you're too, Marcus. I would, but I've, I've read that there's actually no conservatism really in Donald Trump. But in fact, he's more of a reactionist. There's like this concept that I didn't know about until yesterday. Reactionism is reactionism is more about let's reverse the direction entirely and go back to something. Whereas conservatism is let's slow down. Let's proceed cautiously, which if you look at the church or church being the latter day lens, they would be more, let's slow down.

but proceed and progress, but let's be cautious about it. Wouldn't you say that's true? Never have they been reactionists like, stop what we're doing, reverse and go back to a different time.

Matt (17:20.314)
Yeah, Mark would know way more about conservative as an ideology and whether Trump fits that than I do.

Marc (17:27.064)
I would? Well, that's gracious compliment. I would give Sean more points once again, because that I think is a fair differentiation. Conservative being let's, well, and then even then do we want to use European definitions? Because European, conservative is let's conserve the freedom from the people. And that's what Democrats do. Or Republicans also.

Matt (17:28.142)
I think so. What does it mean to be conservative, Mark?

Marc (17:54.895)
basically politicians, but then the American terminology of conservative, you know, it's just the kind of classic George W. Bush Republican of rah rah, down with abortion, hooray America.

Matt (18:08.398)
Yeah. So then, so then is Trump conservative in any of those definitions?

Marc (18:14.06)
I mean, he's done pretty good with the Supreme Court justices being more of that conservative bend of let's conserve what America is and, you know, let's be constitutional minded, which again, is that when we define conservatism, if we make it American conservatism, then the constitution becomes a discussion point. But even then, it's such a big tent. Who knows what it meant? Is Ronald Reagan trampled on the Second Amendment? One might argue.

Matt (18:43.234)
Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Marc (18:44.117)
Is he not the face of conservatism?

Matt (18:47.482)
Yeah, I think that's why these kinds of questions are harder for me to answer because what it means to be conservative is contextual. There's not like this universal defined definition of conservative.

Shawn (18:57.683)
And Matt, and Matt, that's what I think is foolishness for anyone listening or any of us in America to put our loyalties behind these ever changing profit driven manmade organizations called conservatism or republicanism or Democrats and liberalism because they are ever changing. There's no universality. There's no, absolute to it. And people, but why people do right. People want to put on that red hat and be like,

MAGA and we are conservative. It doesn't mean anything. They don't even know what it means. So it's just a huge problem. That's why I like Latter Day Lens. Pull it back, discover principles that govern, and don't show loyalty to any of these manmade groups.

Matt (19:39.75)
But I also, Sean, to your other point, I don't think I would argue that the church is a conservative organization. Especially if you go back to Joseph Smith times, some of the ideas that he was promoting and advocating were very liberal, very not conservative.

Shawn (19:55.125)
But but I wasn't saying the church is conservative. I'm saying according to the definition that I presented they might be right and all I said was conservatism means slow down and proceed cautiously make change and progress but do it cautiously. Okay. I don't know. It took kind of a long time to change some kind of big big things over the years hasn't it.

Matt (20:04.58)
Yeah, but that's

The church isn't that way. The church doesn't slow down and move cautiously, right?

Matt (20:16.058)
The church changes immediately as soon as new revelation is received. So polygamy, there's no definition by which you could say polygamy was a conservative political move or any kind of move, right? It's just, yeah. So the church moves as revelation moves the church. And sometimes that involves radical liberal change. And it depends on where you live in the world. There are some places in the world that even current church policies would seem very liberal and very progressive and very

Shawn (20:20.725)
nice.

Shawn (20:26.995)
Well said. Well said.

Matt (20:45.06)
like forward moving. And I think there's times in the church's past where it's been more that way and sometimes maybe more cautious. But I don't know that if you think about the perpetual education fund that President Hinckley talked about, but to me, that was very forward thinking. That was very like progressive in its approach to say we can fund education for every member of our church and we should find a way to do that.

Shawn (20:54.623)
Yeah, that's good.

Shawn (21:09.481)
Well said. All right. Points to one half of our political scientists. Both of you. How about both of you?

Matt (21:14.736)
Well, I'll get points to Mark. Mark did a great job explaining MAGA and Trump, where he's conservative and where he's maybe not conservative.

Marc (21:16.355)
Aw.

Marc (21:25.609)
Maybe I did, kinda. But if I did, then I didn't mean to.

Matt (21:30.641)
Okay, the next topic. David Otter and Gordon Hansen are economists who accurately predicted the China shock that upended the US economy between 1999 and 2007. That's the period of time when we lost so many manufacturing jobs to China. But they argue that once the China once the Mao to manufacturing transition was complete in China, sometime around 2015, that shock stopped.

and US manufacturing rebounded. they argue that in the last 10 years under Obama, first Trump term, President Biden, manufacturing rebounded as much as it's going to rebound. And what they're worried about now is China shock 2.0. They say that's the one that's fast approaching where China moves from underdog to the global leader. Today, China is aggressively contesting the innovative sectors where the United States has long been

the unquestioned leader like aviation, AI, telecommunications, microprocessors, robotics, nuclear, and fusion power, quantum computing, biotech and pharma, solar and batteries. And so the question I have is, is the United States right now focused too much on the wrong thing? As the US places tariffs on our dominant trading partners, are we not just helping China 2.0 come to fruition?

Shawn (22:53.407)
So Matt, the general idea of this article is basically that the real contest now is not about protecting yesterday's jobs and industries, but instead about owning tomorrow's industries. And if you look at Trump's administration, he's so focused on now let's bring certain types of manufacturing back to America. It's like, well, that was the battle 20, 30 years ago. Look forward, man. Is that the argument? That's.

Matt (23:06.01)
Yes.

Matt (23:18.704)
Yeah, that's the argument. But, then the question that I'm asking is beyond just the Trump's trying to save manufacturing, the fact that he places tariffs on our, trading partners, right? He doesn't place tariffs on Russia. He doesn't place tariffs on Iran. he doesn't, right. He doesn't place tariffs on the countries we don't do trade with. The tariffs go on our major trading partners for reasons that don't make any sense to me.

Right. So then the question is like, is that strategy using tariffs to try to either protect manufacturing or protect or like something political? that actually helping China beat us in the future? Mark your hands up.

Marc (23:58.461)
Yes, I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense to put a tariff on the country you're not trading with because then nobody's paying anybody because there's no trade.

Matt (24:08.322)
Right? Well, so our trade with Russia is not zero, right? There's a little bit of trade that happens there. There's a little bit of trade that happens with Iran. And you never hear Trump say, hey, let's use tariffs to stop the Iranian nuclear program. He says, let's bomb them, right? But he doesn't use tariffs.

Marc (24:25.195)
But mean, comparatively, it's... I'm just saying, when you import five cents from Russia and $300 from China, China, could take back a hundred bucks. Russia, there's nothing there.

Shawn (24:38.751)
You're saying tariff as a strategy with countries we don't trade with is useless.

Marc (24:43.07)
I would say.

Matt (24:44.304)
But I'm saying tariffs on countries we do trade with is also dangerous because it incentivizes them to go to China for the things where we're dominant, right? So like Brazil, 80 % of the roses we get in the United States comes from Brazil. So if we place a huge tariff on Brazil, so they can't sell roses to the United States anymore, well, they're gonna sell them somewhere, right? So then why wouldn't they sell them to China? Or...

Shawn (25:11.131)
Or Matt, or Matt, I'm sure the thinking from Trump is, or they're going to just renegotiate with us and we're going to get a better deal and then the trade will continue on forever, but we will get a better deal. It's simple negotiation in his

Matt (25:22.384)
Yeah, but with Brazil, he doesn't want a better deal. With Brazil, he wants them to not prosecute a former president for crimes.

Shawn (25:30.951)
I'm sure it's economic. It's got to be economic as well. It's got to be roses.

Matt (25:31.13)
Right, no, it's not economic. He's very clear that it's not that. Yeah, even his trade advisor, when they ask him the questions, right, they'll say that there's some kind of like, well, we need to bring manufacturing back to the United States, but when you ask about a specific tariff on a specific country, they'll just say, well, that's part of this broader picture. But Trump's very clear that like, no, no, we want you to stop this investigation.

or this witch hunt of the former president or otherwise we're going to put an 80 % tariff on Brazil. Like specifically that was Brazil, right?

Shawn (26:01.397)
I mean, I hate to say it, but the knuckleheads in power can use whatever tactics they want, but I don't think it's one or the other matter. I think it's sure they're going to use tariffs to get politically what they want, but they're also going to use tariffs to get economically what they want. Both are in play. It's not one or the other.

Matt (26:17.37)
But isn't it a dangerous strategy? That's my question. Isn't it dangerous? Because if we raise, we disincentivize those countries from doing trade with us.

Shawn (26:23.091)
It's dangerous.

Yeah, it's dangerous if the result is what you say. If there's never any trade ever again with the United States and instead they're going to Iran and China, it's dangerous. But I don't think the projections are that. think that Brazil is always going to want to sell roses to Americans. So they're going to be willing to negotiate that price down. But that's optimistic.

Matt (26:43.846)
What would they negotiate down though? Like when we put tariffs on Canada and Mexico with whom we already have a free trade agreement, like what are we trying to negotiate different with them?

Shawn (26:55.605)
At least on the face of things, way that Trump is selling it is Brazil puts a bunch of high tariffs on us because they want to not, you know, get basically I'm to put high tariffs on roses so you don't put high tariffs or any tariffs on whatever America is shipping to Brazil. That's the point that he's always pushing, whether that's propaganda or not. don't know.

Matt (27:17.228)
but Brazil is a country where there's a trade surplus. We actually send more to them than what they send to us. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Cause I, draw. Yeah. Yeah. So what do you think Mark? Do you think that it's dangerous to use tariffs as a political and an economic strategy?

Shawn (27:22.815)
Was that right? I'm just using Brazil as the example because you brought up roses, but.

Marc (27:27.551)
Nope.

Shawn (27:36.191)
Take that, Matt.

Matt (27:37.072)
No. Okay. Yeah.

Marc (27:40.787)
I give myself points because of succinct

Matt (27:43.888)
You're not worried, Mark? You're not worried about China 2.0? Really?

Marc (27:47.387)
Nah, the King will be back soon, he'll destroy all the world's nations. Foolishness, until then it might get a little bad, but I'm not too worried about it.

Matt (27:52.262)
Matt (27:58.874)
When you say the king, you're talking second coming. So, so your political strategy for the moment.

Marc (28:01.373)
That's right. King George III is glorious majesty.

Shawn (28:07.037)
Matt, Matt, do you really think the tariffs is the most important discussion here? Is a tariff battle really going to be the thing that makes us lose to the China shock 2.0? In other words, isn't America so innovative? Don't we have people who are, I mean, we're leading in AI, for example, that's going to dominate over the next 10 years. We're leading by a long shot, aren't we? And that has really

Matt (28:22.586)
Yes.

Shawn (28:36.625)
some to do obviously with trades and tariffs and energy and all that kind of stuff has a lot to do with it actually. But the tech side of it is really America's not affected in any way by his trade deals other than eventually with the energy side. Go ahead, Mark.

Marc (28:53.523)
Well, here's the trouble with saying that, well, we're so advanced with AI. AI is going to very soon be self-replicating to a degree. You just open up a program, say, make an AI and you get one. It's kind of like the nuclear bomb. We were so advanced for so long, we had it all baby. And then one guy just pops over to Russian says they used graphite and, well, nevermind.

Shawn (29:17.586)
Interesting take, that's interesting.

Matt (29:17.636)
Right. China already has an AI tool that's more advanced than chat GPT that's better than anything that we have in AI.

Shawn (29:26.845)
No, it's not. You're talking about deep seek and it's not. I mean, it's, good. It's, it's compared. It's, it's, they're all in the same kind of, they all do different things kind of differently, but

Matt (29:31.472)
Are you sure?

Matt (29:37.606)
Okay, so now let's say that you're somebody in Europe and you have to decide, am I going to use chat GPT or am I going to use the China one? With China, there's no tariff. There's no tariff to use the China one, but there is a tariff on the one from the US.

Shawn (29:45.427)
The tariffs of—

Shawn (29:50.847)
There's no tariff on using ChatGPT. What are you talking about?

Matt (29:53.222)
100 % they're gonna, you think that we can place a tariff on the European Union and they're not gonna retaliate with tariffs on our industries? Of course they will.

Shawn (29:59.787)
you're just using it. You're not specifically saying tariffs on chat. GPT you're saying as an example.

Matt (30:04.664)
Right. So, so AI is just the one we're talking about. When we talk about aviation, telecommunications, microprocessors, robotics, quantum computing, biotech, all that stuff, all of those tariffs are getting placed on our products. And so, so if China can produce those things cheaper than the United States, and it's especially because China's are going to come with no tariffs attached to them, then we're hurting ourselves in the future. I think that as we look to the past and make policies based on trying to fix something that happened 20 years ago,

Shawn (30:14.015)
Yeah, yeah.

I suture sin.

Matt (30:34.458)
We're gonna shoot ourselves in the foot for the future.

Shawn (30:36.659)
That's an interesting thought. mean, we're definitely none of us are economists. So it's kind of a hard. It's really a complicated discussion and we have no crystal ball to see what's actually going to happen. But you're got

Matt (30:44.976)
But these people are economists. The economists are the one that warn about this.

Shawn (30:48.725)
But you're- Yeah, but I've read both sides, Matt. Some economists say, right?

Matt (30:52.558)
Of course you can find economists that will say the other side, but you say, where are the economists that study China and got it right last time? And where are they at on this issue? Those are the economists you listen to on that issue, right? The ones that got it right last time.

Shawn (30:56.445)
Of course.

Marc (31:06.259)
But what is profit is don't panic

Shawn (31:06.537)
Maybe, yeah. One more.

Matt (31:10.822)
I love how Mark's approach to the current political problems are, Jesus is coming soon. We'll be okay.

Shawn (31:18.933)
What if he doesn't come soon, Mark? You're in trouble.

Marc (31:19.08)
and all I'm doing here.

Marc (31:24.03)
Don't bring that up, it's terrifying. I don't actually have to think about this stuff.

Matt (31:25.126)
Hahahaha

Shawn (31:29.461)
Let's just point out the logic in your whole life theory here. There's no evidence really that he's coming soon. It could be 3,000 years from now.

Matt (31:33.158)
You

Marc (31:36.632)
I disagree wholeheartedly.

Shawn (31:40.661)
scripturally the word soon is a very relative topic or definition.

Matt (31:46.096)
We're the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What are the latter days, Sean?

Shawn (31:51.925)
Could be 100 years, could be 3,000 years.

Matt (31:58.854)
I read in the Doctrine and Covenants recently, behold, I come quickly.

Shawn (31:59.158)
Yeah

Shawn (32:04.751)
But to God time is relative, right? It's only finite to us. So quickly to him means something different to you and me.

Marc (32:08.913)
but what did the what did the one year ago this past October I guess it was when he laid out and said no no it's it really is soon this time and even

Shawn (32:19.733)
Mark, they've said that, the prophets have said that from the restoration on because what it does is it helps us feel urgency to have faith and repent and live to our covenants. It's great. It's a wonderful message. It's true, but...

Marc (32:32.615)
However, I challenge you to find one prophet who said, quote, time is running out, close quote, like President Nelson did back in 2016.

Shawn (32:43.237)
I can quote Book of Mormon prophets from thousands of years ago saying time is running out.

Marc (32:48.344)
I don't use that phrase anywhere.

Matt (32:48.494)
And it did run out for them. Their whole world got destroyed.

Marc (32:54.405)
Aha! I give point to brother, Matthew, for this one.

Shawn (32:54.869)
Good point. Yeah, good point. Good point.

Matt (32:58.694)
Well, let's let's pivot from the second coming to Jeffrey Epstein.

Marc (33:03.995)
Yay!

Shawn (33:05.993)
Matt, don't know. There's no way we're not gonna all just say yes to this question and then move on. Like, what's the discussion?

Matt (33:11.704)
All right, well, let's find out what happened, Sean. Most of the news cycle this week is Trump surrogates telling people that there's nothing in the Epstein files. Despite this, more and more news is leaking that connects Trump himself to Epstein, and there's now broad bipartisan support to release everything in the Epstein case. Candidate Trump promised complete transparency about the Epstein files.

Marc (33:14.141)
Yes.

Matt (33:36.71)
Should the US government release all of the Epstein files including the client list as Trump promised and not just do this silly What is this like a grand jury testimony or whatever should they release everything like he promised?

Marc (33:51.325)
100 %

Matt (33:53.7)
Really? And Sean, you say, you s-

Marc (33:54.98)
yeah.

Shawn (33:55.061)
Yeah, good try, Matt. You thought Mark would argue against this, but we're done, right?

Matt (33:59.376)
No, no, I 100 % think that Trump should not release the Epstein files.

Shawn (34:02.846)
What?

Marc (34:03.003)
What? Why do you want to protect the pedophiles?

Matt (34:06.598)
I love that that's what it is.

Marc (34:10.661)
You've been compromised by Masad, I knew it.

Shawn (34:13.971)
Okay, all right, this is surprising, Matt. Give us your take, why?

Matt (34:15.718)
Now, as you know, I listen to and watch a lot of court television. And so I know that there are a number of things that investigators find and people say when they're being questioned. In this particular case, there's going to be loads and loads of child pornography. We should not release all of that stuff to the public. That's nobody's business. I hardly think that the government should have any of that information. should all actually, it should all be destroyed.

because there's no good that comes of retaining that information. He's dead, Maxwell or whatever is in prison, like it's over. There's nothing else that anyone can learn from it. So destroy it all to protect the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. To me, that's easy.

Shawn (34:59.573)
All right, think this is one of those contrarian moments with Matt where you're just playing the other side. Matt, think, but isn't the cry to release them to reveal all of the criminals who colluded or worked with or, you know.

Matt (35:05.476)
No, it seems so obvious!

Matt (35:18.31)
Do you really think that the justice department got information from some interview about some powerful person and they didn't follow up on that information? let's say you're in the FBI and you're working the Epstein case and they say,

Marc (35:27.727)
Yes.

Shawn (35:28.861)
Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely.

And then Donald Trump says, don't go after that person.

Matt (35:36.41)
Donald Trump has never said don't go after that person.

Shawn (35:39.033)
In public?

Matt (35:40.858)
Well, if Donald Trump really thought that he was in any kind of a trouble, then why would he as a campaign on his campaign as a candidate say, I promised to release everything that would be the stupidest thing you could ever do. If you knew there was like damning evidence in there.

Marc (35:53.116)
Because once he's in then Pam Bondi or whoever is able to say actually Mr. President hears this thing and he can go, good point. I didn't know you guys had that. Nevermind.

Shawn (36:04.994)
Amen. Exactly.

Matt (36:05.84)
But the original case in 2019, he was president of the United States at that time. He had access to everything in the Epstein files. And he didn't take any of that classified stuff with him when he was like taking classified things to Mar-a-Lago.

Shawn (36:16.979)
Matt, you are saying it would have already been exposed if there was anyone who was a criminal, who was a child rapist, any of those people would have already been exposed. So it's already done. There's no point in exposing all that information.

Matt (36:24.218)
Yes. Yes.

Matt (36:31.3)
Right. The guy who was the royal family guy in England, Prince, what are, yeah, right. If they went after Prince Andrew and were willing to publicize the stuff that he did, why wouldn't they go after anybody? Like it makes no sense. If I'm in the FBI investigating this case and I get the name of, I'm not going to say somebody's name because I don't want to get sued and somebody's names in there, I'm going to investigate that no matter what I would investigate that.

Marc (36:56.252)
I wouldn't worry about getting sued because I'm pretty sure the three listeners aren't going to cause...

Matt (37:00.39)
So you guys really think that there's secret stuff in the Epstein files that they're not telling us because it's going to hurt the rich and powerful. everything that you do that's related to child porn and child rape is going to be sealed by the justice department because that information is super private and shouldn't be out there.

Shawn (37:11.497)
Matt, they're classified files, right? They're classified.

Shawn (37:22.952)
Right, and so.

Marc (37:27.119)
Well, I don't believe people are saying, us videos of the children. think it's more about, we want the list of the clientele because right now there's no list of clients. There's no actual named criminal charges or anything. So long story short, it's a shame Jeffrey Epstein killed himself because he was just about to be released to lack of evidence.

Shawn (37:31.133)
Yeah, that's not what people want, Matt!

Matt (37:33.338)
What do they want?

Shawn (37:37.673)
That's what they want.

Matt (37:52.272)
because you're saying there was plenty of evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was doing bad things.

Marc (37:56.549)
But where's the evidence? Well, there's no evidence. I have it on my desk, says Pam Bondi. All right, can we have it? What list? There's no list. There's no nothing. Stop it. Get out of here.

Matt (38:07.302)
Kash Patel, the head of the FBI, he his whole the whole reason he's in the position he's in is because he's like one of these people that really believed there was a list and he says there is no list.

Marc (38:09.69)
What a bum-

Marc (38:20.207)
What bum and a liar. I have you not read the Book of Mormon, man?

Matt (38:22.502)
Wow.

Matt (38:26.237)
Of course.

Shawn (38:26.473)
Hehehehehe

Marc (38:28.196)
This is what Moroni warned us about. These are the combinations.

Matt (38:32.422)
I not think that the situation where I would be defending Trump would be the Epstein files. To me, that just seems obvious.

Shawn (38:41.779)
Yeah, that's weird, Matt. And Mark makes a good point. Like if we study the... Yeah, what did you just say, Mark? If we study the secret combinations that are detailed, I mean, this is the exact, right? That people in power protect themselves by using secret combinations to do harm and to do murder and to do all these terrible things. That's what's happening, isn't it?

Marc (38:51.354)
Well, the company.

Matt (38:51.397)
the

Matt (39:05.702)
But Mark believes that Trump is a good man. You believe that he sacrificed great personal wealth to do something for the good of the country because he wants to help our nation.

Shawn (39:09.397)
No.

Marc (39:09.466)
And did I ever say...

Marc (39:20.526)
Well, I'm pointing out to simply say he does nothing but for himself. Well, I think there's not evidence for that, but I'm not necessarily saying it means he's a good man.

Matt (39:31.521)
okay. Okay.

Marc (39:33.22)
If he's on the Epstein list, that doesn't exist.

Matt (39:37.648)
probably doesn't exist if it existed like if okay, let's say that you're Trump and your name is really in there

Shawn (39:40.788)
Matt, let me ask you this. Matt, let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. If we knew for a fact that that, if they did make the doctor, the documents public, that there would be two people on there who were really evil rotten people that we don't know about and they would be prosecuted and stopped, would it be worth it at that point to you? Two people, just two. How about one? How about one? There's one person that we didn't know about that gets revealed. Would it then be worth it to you?

Marc (39:40.836)
Well, if we have.

Matt (39:46.875)
Mm-hmm.

Matt (40:09.358)
Okay, before I, the answer is sure, of course. But my question is, why would making that name public lead to a prosecution that isn't already going to happen? Like,

Marc (40:21.847)
because they've their own. It's a conspiracy theory. But as President Benson said, it's not even conspiracy theories, it's conspiracy facts.

Shawn (40:22.26)
It would.

Matt (40:31.622)
Okay, let's say that you're Donald Trump, who's president of the United States in 2019 when Epstein kills himself, and you get word that there's a list with your name on it. Would you not? Okay, it's one of his buddies, somebody he wants to protect. Okay, would you not destroy that evidence as president of the United States? So why didn't he? So why didn't he?

Shawn (40:42.185)
No, no, let's say it's not Trump. Move him out of this situation. Yeah. Yeah.

Marc (40:54.05)
Yeah.

Shawn (40:54.293)
I mean, that's kind of what's happening is he's, but that's what's happening. He's preventing it from coming out to protect them. That's what it looks like.

Matt (41:00.506)
He could have done it before anyone cared about it. could have said, he could have said in 2019, there's nothing there. Why make it, why leave it out there and then make it a campaign issue four years later.

Marc (41:10.017)
in the hopes that the people would forget about it move on.

Matt (41:14.262)
really? So, okay. So this is one of those where he thought he was just like saying things like how he just says stuff sometimes, and he didn't really think that people actually cared about it.

Shawn (41:23.955)
Matt, if there's a chance that one person can be exposed and taken off the streets and punished, err on that side. Don't err on the side of, there's no one in there. No, if they're protected and someone's roaming around doing the same thing that they've been doing, don't err on that side. Err on the side of putting someone behind bars who can't do it again.

Matt (41:43.3)
This is the side I'm erring on. Sometimes when people get brought into the police for questioning and they're bad actors, they'll start naming names of people that have nothing to do with anything just to like, maybe they've got a grudge against that person or maybe their name just comes into their head for whatever reason. And I'm more concerned that people who had nothing to do with Epstein are going to have their names drug through the mud for no reason at all because there's no evidence connecting them to this.

Shawn (42:10.515)
Matt, on that other side. Air on that other side, Matt. Don't air on this side.

Matt (42:11.054)
other than some witness said it in some testimony.

Matt (42:20.71)
Now, now I know this is why I'm on the other side, because Rebecca nurse who got killed in the Salem witch trials is one of my great, great, great, great grandmas. She got burned as a witch because she was reasonable and said, Come on, stop being crazy.

Shawn (42:21.619)
HAHAHAHA

Marc (42:23.32)
To love the-

Marc (42:32.746)
and she was on the list.

Shawn (42:37.469)
Matt, Matt, close your eyes for a second and take a breath. And then I want you to hear my voice and your wife's voice in your head say, Matt, err on the other side of this. Do not take this stance publicly.

Matt (42:50.808)
Okay. I really just trust the FBI. I know that that's a weird thing to say. I trust the FBI agents would actually investigate and follow up on all of this stuff. And if there was anything there, they would

Shawn (43:00.595)
Okay, that's logical.

Marc (43:00.888)
Why should have to Asians that are kind of racist?

Matt (43:04.198)
FBI agents the FBI agents. Yeah, sorry about that. Okay

Marc (43:06.503)
I'll... I'll... I'll... I mistake.

Shawn (43:08.949)
Okay, that's a logical stance then. I think you're safe there.

Matt (43:13.378)
Okay, I'm not trying to defend Epstein. I think he was a terrible person. And by the way, if I were in his situation, I too would have killed myself. Like who wants to spend the rest of your life in prison after you've lived a life of wealth and luxury? I

Shawn (43:24.883)
Matt, one believes that he killed himself.

Marc (43:29.943)
Cash but-

Matt (43:30.124)
Wait, he was killed?

Matt (43:35.93)
They released all of the footage in the prison.

Marc (43:38.273)
What? there is footage. The cameras literally went down in the exact span in which he died. The two guards who were supposed to watch him because he was on suicide watch, both happened to fall asleep at the exact same time. And then the bone, I forget the name of it, but the bone here in your thyroid area that it really only breaks under extreme pressure broke. And somehow he was able to do that with wet toilet paper and a sheet that's made out of paper, basically.

Shawn (44:05.557)
Matt, that's the whole meme is that he killed himself. Ha ha. No, he didn't kill himself. All the people who stand to get punished got him taken out.

Matt (44:08.422)
man.

Matt (44:14.5)
Wasn't there an autopsy that ruled it suicide?

Shawn (44:18.472)
Of course.

Marc (44:19.447)
That's what I know, the bone in the throat that snapped was in the autopsy. Like, well, that doesn't just happen easily. But when you got Hillary Clinton on the job, yeah, that bone will snap.

Matt (44:29.486)
It was it was Donald Trump. Donald

Marc (44:32.017)
I was hit by Clinton and Donald Trump because they're all part of the same cobble of rich pedophiles.

Matt (44:35.718)
You guys are making me wish I had voted for Kamala Harris for president of the United States. Because she would have definitely she doesn't protect rich and powerful people. She would have stood. She would have stood for

Marc (44:41.802)
Yeah, bro.

Shawn (44:46.695)
All right, move on.

Marc (44:49.494)
I very inappropriate for the latter day lens.

Shawn (44:54.791)
All right, let's go to the big question.

Matt (44:55.073)
All right, let's, okay. In Alma chapters 10 and 11, it's the end of chapter 10, beginning of chapter 11, we read about how lawyers in Ammonihah received wages according to their employee. And this motivated them to stir things up in society because the more conflict there was, the more work there was for these lawyers. Alma 10, 31 and 32 talks about how Ziezram

was one of the best lawyers and that's why he was the foremost to accuse Elma and Amulek because he get you get gain according, because he was trying to get gain and get employment. So my question is, this is the big question. Is this one of the flaws of the system of judges that they set up in the Book of Mormon? And is this one of the flaws in our current political system? If lawyers, and I'm gonna acknowledge that they're probably necessary, were compensated differently, would we have less conflict in American society?

And I have things in the notes like you didn't always pay lawyers the way that we pay them now. So we don't have to do it the way we do it. So the question is, is the way that we do it leading to more conflict in society and maybe we should do it differently.

Shawn (46:05.525)
You're basically the heart of this saying if lawyers can profit so much from either manipulating the law or if they know the law so well, they can manipulate it to a point where they can make greater profit or you're saying that that system corrupts lawyers and is provides more harm than good. Is that what you're saying?

Matt (46:22.456)
It motivates lawyers to stir up conflict in society, to see problems where there might not be problems, to argue for things, maybe there's nothing there.

Marc (46:31.132)
And it corrupts the people too, because then the people see commercial after commercial, call this office now if you've ever been looked at. And so I just know I could sue anyone I wanted any time and here's a lawyer that will do it and I don't even have to pay him until I win? Alright, let's go.

Shawn (46:50.665)
I just don't see another alternative, Matt. mean, you're either going to have zero lawyers because they're not going to be able to earn or you let the free market.

Matt (46:57.594)
Well, ancient Greece didn't allow lawyers to charge fees.

Marc (47:03.058)
or there's a third option, everybody carry a gun.

Shawn (47:03.267)
How they are.

Matt (47:06.918)
I think that leads to more violence. Well, so think about this, Sean, like as I look at the recent Supreme Court rulings, a lot of the Supreme Court rulings are actually going to initiate more lawsuits, right? Because they say, well, like one of their rulings about, I think it was the 14th Amendment case. said a lower court can't make a ruling that applies across the whole nation unless there's a class action lawsuit. So now, right, it used to be like, let's say that

Trump says, can't, you're no longer a US citizen. And I go to the court and I say, what Trump said was against the law. That judge cannot reverse Trump's policy unless there's a class action lawsuit. And how do get that? You get a whole lot of lawyers to represent a whole lot of people and you put them all together into this one case. And so now instead of being one lawyer representing one person, it's like a hundred lawyers or one lawyer representing a hundred people or a hundred different lawyers all joining together. So a lot of what the court's doing,

makes it so that there's more lawsuits. Or then think about Trump and the way he does things. He sues and sues and sues and sues so many people. There's so much conflict in society based on lawyers representing people who've been aggrieved in some way. And I think that it makes society less peaceful.

Shawn (48:17.971)
Yeah, I understand. I understand the point, and I'm grateful that you brought in scriptures, and it does make sense. I can agree with you, but what's the alternative?

Matt (48:27.718)
I'll tell you three alternatives. One, you can represent anyone you want to, but you can't charge a fee to do it.

Shawn (48:34.397)
No, that's never going to happen because you're never going because who's going to who's going to know you won't because you are busy with your job and you have a wife and a family and a kid. You have no self-interest. There's no nothing driving you to spend your time and value. Go ahead.

Matt (48:35.93)
Why? I'll represent you, Sean. For free.

Matt (48:46.853)
My-

Marc (48:48.469)
but he said he would and I'm a witness so now he's going.

Matt (48:51.782)
My affection for you, my interest in making sure that nobody hurts you.

Shawn (48:52.041)
There you go.

Oh, altruism. Altruism. Go read Einran, Matt, a little bit. Altruism.

Matt (49:01.218)
Okay. Gandhi had a system. Gandhi proposed that instead of having lawyers, you have a city community council that resolves disputes between people. This is, you like to share this first about where Solomon asked for wisdom and people, there was the woman who's like, it's my baby. No, it's my baby. They didn't have lawyers representing them. They just went to King Solomon and King Solomon kind of helped figure out like, okay, here's the right and here's the wrong in that situation.

Shawn (49:04.243)
Which was...

Shawn (49:12.053)
like a jury.

Shawn (49:27.765)
like a jury.

Matt (49:29.498)
Yeah, like a jury, but you would elect these people. They'd say, these are people we trust to resolve all of our disputes. And so when you have a dispute, you go to this community council and you tell them your problem and they'll work it out.

Shawn (49:42.389)
And so if someone's accused of something, they just have to try and convince this jury of 25 people.

Matt (49:48.96)
so you're talking about criminal cases. In a criminal case, think that, yeah, if we had fewer lawyers, that would be a lot. You should be able to defend yourself without a lawyer, Sean. If they accuse you of some crime, you should be able to just go and say, I didn't do it. And then you have a jury. We've created a very complicated system that doesn't need to be that way. So yeah, we could move away from that.

Shawn (49:51.743)
Yeah.

Marc (50:07.732)
You do have the right to not have a lawyer.

Shawn (50:07.861)
I'd have to think about that.

Shawn (50:13.683)
Yeah, why wouldn't you just do that?

Matt (50:13.72)
Right? Well, did you see when Lori Daybell tried to defend herself? She just couldn't because there's so many rules of like what can be entered as evidence and who you can subpoena and all.

Shawn (50:18.165)
That's right.

Shawn (50:24.351)
But why would those rules go away in a different system that doesn't?

Matt (50:27.162)
Because there's no lawyers. There's no lawyers. So when she says, this is the case I want to present, there's nobody there to say, I object. You just go present your case. And she could present whatever case she wanted to present and the jury could decide or not decide.

Shawn (50:41.685)
Interesting, okay, I could consider that. Yeah, give me another one, this is good.

Matt (50:43.824)
Here's the third system, Sean. In the church, if you're brought before a disciplinary council of a high council, then there's 12 people that sit on the high council and they draw straws and it's randomly selected. Six of the people on the high council take one side and six of the people on the high council represent you and defend you.

Shawn (51:04.595)
I had no idea that that was the way it happened. Is that really how it happens? At every level? At every level?

Matt (51:07.738)
Yeah. Well, there's only the, you mean, I don't know when it would go higher than the stake high council in a, in a Bishop thing. No, that doesn't happen. But at a stake thing where you could lose your membership, then yeah, the stake high council, then they're randomly assigned six represent you and then six represent the other side. And then they make the decision after the, yeah. So you could do the same thing on, every level in society. You could say, here's this thing.

Shawn (51:29.897)
I didn't know that. That's in fashion.

Matt (51:37.05)
half of you are randomly assigned to defend the defendant and half of you are assigned to defend the accused or whatever and then

Shawn (51:44.165)
you've convinced me, Matt, actually.

Marc (51:46.885)
I like that, although maybe keeping the lawyers, but the lawyers just find out in the moment, okay, you're defending this person here and you have one month to prepare your cases.

Matt (51:57.764)
Wow. I think the lawyers are just not, I mean, maybe you need them sometimes, but they've made a real mess of things. It's really, really quite complicated. You should be able to just go defend yourself without all of these rules and all of these like procedural things and what can be evidence and what can't be evidence like, because we don't want to bias the jury or we don't want to sway them with emotion or whatever. I just think that they've made it all too complicated in criminal cases.

But then it spills over because they make their money by suing conflict, all that stuff. it create, they're motivated to create conflict. Not that they do that, not all of them, but there's certainly that incentive there for them to create conflict in society. So if we want a more peaceful society, we could say we're not going to pay people who create conflict in society.

Shawn (52:46.621)
I'm learning that as people like you, whom I love and adore, who have this uncanny ability to think outside the box on everything, half the time is genius thoughts like this that make me think. And then the other half, like the previous question, make me go, why you are not, that is dumb.

Matt (53:04.838)
That's the story of my life, Sean. Thank goodness my children have their mother because I say things and then they all look to her for like, he crazy or should we listen to that? And she has the real power because she decides what they believe and what they don't believe.

Shawn (53:20.905)
Well, not that there's anything that can be done about it, right, the lawyer thing, but I will think deeply about it. And I think I now agree with you. I think you've convinced me.

Matt (53:28.388)
Hey, I love it. And Mark, you do too, right? Hey, this is a victory. You see?

Marc (53:31.42)
Yeah.

Shawn (53:34.037)
Mm-hmm.

Marc (53:34.087)
I don't know about the exact nature of everything about it, there's something there.

Matt (53:39.878)
It's very peculiar to me, the things where we disagreed and couldn't find common ground this episode. Whether the second coming is soon was very divisive. Whether Jeffrey Epstein files should be released, very divisive.

Shawn (53:46.517)
You

Shawn (53:50.697)
Hahaha

Marc (53:55.6)
And bidets were very divisive. We almost lost a cohost over the discussion on bidets.

Shawn (54:02.527)
Hahaha!

Matt (54:05.263)
That's awesome. Hey listeners, thanks for joining us this week. It was a lot of fun. We'll talk to you again next week.