The Latter Day Lens
Welcome to The Latter Day Lens, a weekly faith-based podcast where we explore the intersection of Mormonism, global news, and political science. Hosted by Shawn Record and Matthew Miles, a professor of political science, this is your home for an authentic and nuanced LDS perspective on the world’s toughest topics.
Each episode provides thoughtful Latter-day Saint commentary on current events, ranging from Christianity and politics to social identity and economic policy. Whether you are an active LDS member seeking a deeper religious podcast experience or a listener interested in Mormon studies, we apply a "gospel lens" to move beyond the headlines.
Join us every Wednesday for LDS perspectives that are faith-promoting, intellectually honest, and designed to help you navigate your faith in the modern world. From Come Follow Me 2026 insights to deep dives into LDS history and doctrine, we tackle the conversations most people avoid.
The Latter Day Lens
Is the Book of Mormon Socialist? (Episode 185)
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Is the Book of Mormon socialist?
That question launches Matt, Shawn, and Levi into a much bigger debate about capitalism, democratic socialism, wealth inequality, agency, public education, corruption, and how far government should go in encouraging people to make good choices.
But first: Is America's government becoming too corrupt?
A new Gallup survey finds that 89% of U.S. adults believe government corruption is widespread—the highest level Gallup has recorded in two decades.
Matt turns to King Mosiah.
Mosiah argued that government should operate according to the “voice of the people” and established a system of judges rather than continuing Nephite monarchy. Would greater direct accountability to voters reduce corruption today?
Should Americans directly elect more officials—including judges and presidents—or is one of the strengths of the Constitution precisely that different institutions respond to voters at different speeds?
Levi argues for what he calls a heterogeneous government: a House of Representatives that responds relatively quickly to changes in public opinion, a Senate designed to move more slowly, and courts insulated from immediate political pressure.
Matt sees a downside: the farther an official gets from direct voter accountability, the easier corruption may become.
That leaves an uncomfortable question: How much democracy is too much democracy?
Then the conversation turns to economics.
Matt begins with the recent experiences of the United States and Argentina and asks whether contemporary conservative economic policies have actually improved everyday life for ordinary people.
But the conversation quickly becomes theological.
Matt compares elements of the Democratic Socialists of America platform with teachings in the Book of Mormon and argues that scriptural teachings about poverty, inequality, work, and care for the poor can sound surprisingly compatible with some policies associated with the economic left.
Shawn strongly disagrees with equating those teachings with socialism.
The Book of Mormon certainly condemns pride, exploitation, neglect of the poor, and excessive attachment to wealth. But does that tell us anything about what government should do?
Then Matt brings up Fourth Nephi.
After Christ's ministry among the Nephites, the people had “all things common among them,” and the society was characterized by extraordinary unity.
Is that evidence for a more egalitarian economic system?
Shawn identifies what may be the crucial distinction: they chose it.
Can government create a Christlike society by compelling people to share? Or does using coercion to produce an outwardly righteous result undermine the agency that makes the action righteous in the first place?
Levi reframes the economic question another way. If two different sets of economic policies produce roughly similar levels of economic growth, but one provides more healthcare, education, environmental protection, or assistance to the poor, why wouldn't society choose those additional benefits?
That leads Matt to the economic outcome he would most like to recover: a society where a household can realistically choose to live on one income, allowing either parent to remain home if the family wants that arrangement.
And that leads directly to education.
International educational performance has continued to decline. OECD's new PISA 2025 results report historically low average mathematics and reading performance across OECD countries, with reading down 28 points since 2015 and mathematics down 22. The OECD also warns that excessive or poorly guided use of digital devices and AI can undermine learning.
Meanwhile, only 32% of Americans say they are satisfied with the quality of K-12 education in the United States, the lowest result in Gallup's 27-year trend.
Matt sees a connection to the previous episode's discussion of federalism.
Are American schools too locally controlled?
If individual communities determine educational priorities, a dominant local faction can place enormous pressure on schools. One community may emphasize academics. Another may care more about athletics, extracurricular activities, religion, ideology, or simply keeping parents happy.
Would national standards force competing factions to compromise until only the things Americans broadly agree children should learn survive?
Shawn sees the opposite danger. Centralization means that when government makes a bad decision, everyone is stuck with it. Local control gives families at least some opportunity to choose communities that better reflect their priorities.
Then comes the episode's biggest question:
Should government ever try to make us better people?
Prohibition becomes the case study.
Alcohol produces genuine external harms. But the Constitution of the Church's political theology, particularly Doctrine and Covenants 134, also emphasizes freedom of conscience and warns government against suppressing the freedom of the soul.
So where is the line?
Matt introduces the idea of a government nudge.
Rather than simply banning something, government can make desirable behavior easier and undesirable behavior harder.
Levi takes the idea further: What if buying alcohol required a license? Someone convicted of drunk driving or alcohol-related domestic abuse might temporarily lose the ability to legally purchase it.
Shawn sees the danger immediately.
A “nudge” seems attractive when government is nudging people toward your values.
What happens when the political majority changes?
The conversation turns to government incentives surrounding marriage and same-sex relationships as an example of how policies designed to encourage behavior one majority regards as desirable can burden people who do not share the majority's values.
That produces the central tension of the episode:
Government inevitably influences behavior. But when does influence become coercion?
Can government discourage harmful choices while still respecting agency?
Or should government remain neutral and leave persuasion about morality to families, churches, communities, and individuals?
And, naturally, the conversation ends with the policy question America has somehow failed to confront:
Should Broncos fans have to pay an extra tax?
In this episode:
• Why 89% of Americans perceive widespread government corruption
• King Mosiah and the “voice of the people”
• Direct democracy vs. representative institutions
• Why different branches of government move at different speeds
• Accountability and political corruption
• Capitalism, socialism, and the Book of Mormon
• The Democratic Socialists of America platform
• Poverty and wealth inequality in scripture
• Fourth Nephi and “all things common”
• Can government force righteousness?
• Property rights and agency
• The one-income family
• Why educational performance is declining internationally
• AI and digital distraction in schools
• Local control of American education
• Federalism and national education standards
• Prohibition
• Alcohol, agency, and public harm
• Government “nudges”
• When incentives become coercion
• Doctrine and Covenants 134
• And an entirely reasonable tax on Broncos fans
00:00 — Welcome Back, Levi
05:28 — Is American Government Too Corrupt?
07:17 — Would King Mosiah Elect Everyone?
11:59 — Majority Rule vs. Minority Rule
13:02 — Why Government Should Move at Different Speeds
15:03 — Does Accountability Reduce Corruption?
19:33 — Has Conservative Economics Failed?
25:37 — Is the Book of Mormon Socialist?
29:07 — Fourth Nephi: “All Things Common”
30:24 — Can Government Force Righteousness?
33:02 — Why Not Provide More If We Can?
35:27 — Can One Income Support a Family?
36:59 — Are American Schools Failing?
40:51 — Is Local Control Hurting Education?
43:50 — Would National Standards Work Better?
48:19 — Prohibition, Alcohol & Agency
51:34 — Does Agency Include Bad Choices?
52:03 — Can Government Nudge Us Toward Good?
53:05 — Should You Need a License to Buy Alcohol?
54:16 — Can Government Make People Righteous?
57:55 — When Does a Nudge Become Coercion?
1:02:13 — Tax the Broncos Fans?
Visit our website to join the conversation: Latter-day Lens
Matt (00:00.728)
Hey everybody, welcome to the Latter Day Lens. I'm your host, Matt. And with me as always is Sean. And we're so happy to have Levi back with us. Levi, thanks for joining the show.
Levi (00:12.069)
Good to be here all the time. Sad to to be here in the the twilight of Matt's participation here. Womp womp.
shawn (00:18.81)
Pour pour pour it on yeah, pour it on the guilt, Levi. Pour it on.
Matt (00:19.628)
Yeah.
Matt (00:24.726)
Yeah, it's really working. I really regret my decision to leave the show after that. I'm feeling bad inside. nothing in the mailbag because yesterday I just fortunately happened to bump into Jacob Pack in Salt Lake City. You guys love Jacob Pack, right?
shawn (00:42.498)
That's the greatest dude ever.
Levi (00:42.522)
I do.
Matt (00:43.85)
Mm-hmm. I went down to Utah to celebrate my daughter's birthday. She lives in Provo. And then it's like for some reason public transportation was free. And so we were just riding the train. So we went to Temple Square. By the way, if you haven't been to Temple Square, it's way, way cool now. Like they the way it's been redone, it's awesome. And then we were having lunch and then there was Jacob Pack with all of his kids. It was the coolest thing ever. Got to bump into him and his family. Yeah.
shawn (00:58.404)
Mm. Yeah.
shawn (01:08.474)
That's awesome. That's amazing. Did you punch did you punch him in the face or wrestle him or anything? Cause that's how I see. When I see Pack, I just want to just punch him. Out of love.
Levi (01:09.349)
That is so cool.
Matt (01:12.278)
Like try to imagine s
No. No, 'cause I'm not like you, Sean. What I d Yes.
Levi (01:20.847)
His kids are super fun too. Like like each of them, they're so different from each other. They're just fantastic. Yeah. Pike's kids are worth meeting.
Matt (01:27.244)
Yeah. I gave I gave him a hug and then I saw all of his kids there. So I only have four kids and they are not well behaved. And Pax kids, like all of them, like super well behaved, and then just so excited and nice to see me. I've only seen them like one time in my life, and they're just they made me feel like I was Santa Claus or something bumping into them. I was like I was like, Do you guys like Salt Lake City or Missouri better? Guess what they said.
shawn (01:57.605)
What?
Matt (01:58.508)
Missouri, of course. Missouri's w yeah.
Levi (01:59.282)
Missouri. I think Melanie's very well behaved. I think
Matt (02:03.947)
Melanie is Melanie is well my daughter is well behaved, yes. But all six of Pax kids are well behaved, all of them. The teenagers, the less than teenagers, they're all good kids. Sean only has two and his kids are not well behaved.
Levi (02:12.369)
Ha ha
shawn (02:22.35)
perfectly behaved. Those kids, I don't know where they came from. It's crazy.
Matt (02:23.777)
Ha ha ha.
Levi (02:25.297)
It's the fear. It's the fear keeps him in line.
Matt (02:27.127)
Yeah. Shock.
shawn (02:30.318)
Yeah. I I do like Levi, before we start, I do like that before we started recording, Levi started to guilt Matt about leaving the podcast. And Matt decides to just dig in deeper and go, Hey audience, I'm gonna talk about a random third person that no one knows and we're gonna have a five minute conversation about You're just trying hard to be like, Yeah, see people, let me leave. I don't I don't wanna provide content that you wanna listen to.
Matt (02:31.639)
Anyhow.
Matt (02:52.461)
Ha ha ha.
Levi (02:53.137)
It's like
Matt (02:56.019)
Everybody knows Pac. Our listeners don't know Pac? We talk about him all the time.
Levi (03:00.834)
I I almost said Jacob Pack friend of the show, which I guess means he's been on, but he's definitely a friend of all the all the hosts of the show.
Matt (03:03.927)
Yeah.
Matt (03:08.429)
Yeah. Okay, so he's he I don't think I was ever his mission companion, but I I served in mission districts with him. He was Levi, he was your companion, right, for a while? Yeah.
Levi (03:19.907)
Yes, yes.
shawn (03:21.53)
Okay, Levi, did you know that on my podcast, the Mission Stories Podcast, I did an episode last week with Jacob Pack and got his whole not only did I get his whole mission story, but I got his whole like backstory conversion story, and it was incredible. So go listen to Jacob Pack's story on the Mission Stories podcast.
Levi (03:30.363)
What?
Matt (03:30.518)
Levi (03:40.207)
Wow, I a hundred percent will. Wow.
Matt (03:43.116)
Now that I think about it, this podcast should be called Levi and His Mission Companions, because Levi was mission companions with Sean and Sam and Jacob Pack. And I was never mission I was companions with Sean in the MTC for like a week or two, but I was never companions with anybody else on the podcast.
Levi (03:46.565)
Yeah.
shawn (03:53.294)
Uh-huh.
Levi (03:53.509)
Mm-hmm.
shawn (04:01.886)
We were companions for like a month. And we're
Levi (04:01.967)
I was roommates with Matt, so the podcast is people who've lived with Levi.
Matt (04:04.443)
yeah.
That's right. Levi and I lived together for two months, I think, before I got married. Yeah, but it was it was great. and
shawn (04:07.308)
Yeah.
Levi (04:14.545)
Solid two months. Formative.
shawn (04:16.516)
But those were crucial months and we got to be a part of the whole Levi Liberty love story, which was incredible.
Matt (04:22.837)
Yeah, that was amazing. And Pac was our roommate at that time too, right? Yeah.
Levi (04:24.197)
Yes.
Yeah. Yeah.
shawn (04:27.322)
Yeah, Pack is the one who taught Matt how to ghost. Do you remember g how to ghost Matt? Pac's theory was if you follow the lead of the movie Ghost and you buy a wheel turning machine that, you know, for pottery, the goal is to get a girl in there. And what qualifies as a ghost is if you at least touch her hand during the process, and then that's a success.
Matt (04:30.988)
Ha ha ha.
Levi (04:32.239)
Yes, that's true.
Mm-hmm.
Matt (04:49.777)
I've never tried that. I'm gonna I'm gonna see if that works with my wife. We'll see if she still likes me if after we make some pots.
shawn (04:53.827)
Okay.
Okay, go ghost, yeah.
Levi (04:56.881)
yeah. It's a guaranteed win. Young men out there, pay attention. Ghosting. Learn from the master Jacob Pack. Ghosting never fails.
Matt (04:58.655)
Okay. Have you guys tried it?
Sean likes to make Sean likes to make fun of me for using like old man words. Ghosting has a totally different connotation today, Sean. When you say Pac taught me how to ghost, nobody's thinking of the Demi Moore movie.
shawn (05:15.608)
Ha ha ha.
Levi (05:19.109)
Ha ha ha.
shawn (05:21.306)
That's why we had to teach Yeah, I know.
Levi (05:23.141)
We came first. W our ghosting came first.
shawn (05:26.052)
That's right.
Matt (05:28.001)
Be really careful the context in which you say to someone you want to ghost them, because it could have two very different meanings depending on the generation you're from. Okay, we got some big topics this week that I'm excited to talk with you guys about. So, first up, Americans' perceptions of government corruption in the United States are their highest. They've been in 20 years. 89% of US adults say corruption is widespread. That's up 10% points from last year.
shawn (05:32.442)
Ha ha ha.
Matt (05:56.246)
And it's well above the 72 to 79% range that it was between 2010 and 2025. King Mosiah believed that selecting judges by the voice of the people would help prevent corruption. So this is the question. Should the United States shift to having everyone elected by popular vote? Judges, the president, everybody? Let's do the King Mosaic way.
shawn (06:20.42)
Well, first Matt, it does it seems like it seems like a a funny question by saying today, ninety percent of the people think that corruption is widespread. We need to get back to the good old days when only eighty percent of the people thought that it was widespread.
Matt (06:34.539)
No, no, no, I'm saying like our system is corrupt, right? I don't know how corrupt it was in the judge's system, but clearly today we've got a corruption problem.
shawn (06:45.218)
Well but and your solution is saying there's a political
Matt (06:49.569)
My solution, the Book of Mor the Book of Mormon solution.
Levi (06:52.569)
King Mosai's solution.
shawn (06:54.776)
I don't I think you're simplifying a little too much. You're saying that God teaches us through the Book of Mormon a political system that is better and will have less corruption. I don't I I think I think wherever you've got a free people, you're gonna have a certain amount of corruption, right? There's no political system that can fix that, correct?
Matt (07:17.631)
Okay. Okay. So you well, 'cause this is the thing, Sean. Whenever I say we should have a king, people quote to me from this part of Mosiah where he's like, Kings are bad. It's very unusual for the voice of the people to desire wrong things. So we he says so we should govern ourselves by the voice of the people, because that's supposedly so much better than having a king. I'll tell you, if we had a monarch, we would have less corruption than we have right now.
shawn (07:43.098)
I mean, yeah.
Matt (07:45.695)
So if if we're gonna do voice of the people, maybe we should do voice of the people the way Mosiah set it up. Everybody is directly elected.
Levi (07:52.754)
Why do you think a king would be less corrupt? I think that most kings throughout history were extraordinarily corrupt.
Matt (08:02.345)
No, no, no. Well, depends on what
shawn (08:03.99)
And Matt and Matt, you always misquote your your consistently misquoting that Bible. It doesn't say a king would be better. It says a righteous king. If a king could be righteous, then a king would be better. It doesn't say kings are better.
Matt (08:18.605)
So there have been no righteous kings that were corrupt, Levi. If we go with Sean's correction there, all righteous kings are not corrupt. When you have a monarchy, if you go back to like the Magna Carta and things like that, the monarchy derives their power from the elite class. Like in the today's world, it would be the Senate, right? And so those people keep the monarch in check from becoming too corrupt. Because if the if the monarch starts engaging in corruption, it hurts that merchant, that wealthy class.
Levi (08:23.921)
Good call.
Matt (08:48.513)
And so then they choose a new monarch if they need to, or they have a little revolution if they need to. They put the king out of power. So I think that's much easier to control corruption from a king than from a an a like from the president right now.
Levi (09:02.225)
Well and that that seems consistent with at least the system you're talking about where where there's a set of people that could remove the king. Sounds a lot like the the system that King Mosiah was pardon me, guys, that King Mosiah was was advocating, right? 'Cause 'cause he and then he goes on in there and he says, and if a judge was unfit to rule, then the lower a set of lower judges could remove them and and et cetera. So they had sort of these tiers like you're talking about.
Matt (09:15.498)
that's okay.
Setting up, right?
Matt (09:32.427)
Yeah.
Levi (09:32.754)
And I and I think that that you can make a case for this sort of was it Hume that talked about like these tiers of virtue where you have, you know, people in a local area elect a person that they think is most virtuous, and then those virtuous people select from among themselves somebody that's even the most virtuous, and then you have this sort of pyramid of virtue. I mean, you can make an argument for that and and
In the history of our country, we have been more like that, right? So originally we didn't elect senators. Your the senator from your state was not elected by the people, but it was elected by the the state houses would elect the senator that would represent your I mean it was part of the Jacksonian Reformations that that implemented direct it was a constitutional amendment, right? That that called for direct election of senators.
Matt (10:23.019)
Yeah, but that was it was later on. That was like early nineteen hundreds that that happened.
Levi (10:28.069)
is that that late? Okay. All right. Correction accepted. But anyway, we used to do it like that. And I I you can make an argument for that. I think all of those are by the voice of the people. I don't think any of this violates this notion that, you know, whether we have these tears by the voice of the people, that's that's all sounds like by the voice of the people to me.
Matt (10:29.589)
Mm-hmm.
Matt (10:46.443)
No, I direct election. That's what I'm saying. Direct election. So when you have tears y
shawn (10:51.982)
Matt, if you're s but but I'm with I'm with Levi giving him the points already because the Book of Mormon principle, if your question resolves around that, is it do it it it does say the voice of the people. Now if that's up to interpretation, that is the principle. That the the ultimately the
Matt (11:06.025)
In in what way, Sean, in what way is a judge today selected by the voice of the people?
shawn (11:13.396)
d does that fall a little bit under Levi's explanation of
Matt (11:16.845)
Sure. He's got a lot of layer. Levi described a delicious layered cake to me, which is fine. Like that's a it's a good dessert, but I don't think it's a good form of representation. The more layers you have between the voters and the person doing the job, the harder it is for them to hold the person accountable. So sure, a judge is technically elected because the president, who's elected by the Electoral College, selects them, and then the Senate, who's
shawn (11:21.913)
Yeah.
shawn (11:35.086)
So
Levi (11:40.025)
Yeah.
Matt (11:45.888)
elected by the people confirms that person. But there's so many layers of accountability in there. Like if the US Supreme Court knew that they were gonna be subject to elections, then they would be much more responsive to the voice of the people.
shawn (11:59.973)
But your other the other side of this, Matt, the Book of Mormon also says that the majority can and will sometimes be in the wrong, right? So the tyranny of the majority is the risk with what you're talking about, isn't it?
Matt (12:11.319)
But the risk we have right now is the tyranny of the minority. The the reason you have so much corruption is because a person can get elected into office with what, like thirty percent of support of Americans? Thirty five percent. So if you if you can just completely ignore seventy percent of the population you represent and still maintain power, that's a breeding ground for corruption. Because you don't even have to
shawn (12:35.118)
But is it just a matter of who you who you trust more? I mean, based on what you've always said in these podcasts, Matt, you would trust representative democracy like the Republic more than you would trust the voice of the majority of the people.
Matt (12:48.757)
Okay, so then if if we're gonna do a representative democracy, let's do it. Let's have the people vote for their representatives, not have the people vote for somebody in the electoral college who's then gonna choose a president for them.
shawn (12:59.459)
Levi (13:02.843)
So I I I I enjoy, I think one of the inspired things about our constitution is this idea of the this heterogeneous government where we have, yes, we have a house that's elected every two years. It's very responsive to the voice of the people because in two years you're up for reelection. You're directly elected, constantly. and and so that's the place where the voice of the people is heard the strongest. And then you have on top of that, you have a Senate, and the voice of the people is a little
slower moving there, right? They're not immediately accountable, but they are accountable in, you know, they have six-year terms, right? So the Senate's going to move less fast. There's some rules in the Senate that make the Senate sort of the voice of stability. Whereas the House is going to move right away. The people are going to change their mind and the House is going to change its mind. And the Senate's not going be that way. And then on top of that you have, you know, like the Supreme Court or or our district court judges that are appointed for long periods. And there you have a a big
sort of stable momentum there. So you have, you know, judges that are in place for a long time and can sort of be that stability that I think a a country also needs. So I think you need both. I think you need parts of the government that move fast and parts of the government that that move slow.
shawn (14:20.184)
Matt, did the mantle of of of Dallan H. Oaks just fall upon Levi? That was amazing. Like he's preaching what this past weekend he was Oaks was preaching. He's pre preaching this inspired constitution. He's like not word for word, but the principles. And I'd never heard it described like that, Levi. That's inspiring, dude. That sounds right. That sounds like the answer.
Matt (14:37.869)
Okay, but that that doesn't say anything about corruption. Where's the most corruption in our system today? The people that are in the most distant. The the layers that sh that Levi describes there. The the
Levi (14:47.409)
I think the Senate is more corrupt, right? I think the s I mean the the presidency is definitely the most corrupt right now because of a unique person. I think Supreme Court, yeah, is is indeed quite, but I think the Senate is a very corrupt body. I and I don't know why that is exactly. Yeah. Yeah.
shawn (14:50.549)
Matt (14:54.495)
Yes. The Supreme Court? The Supreme Court?
shawn (14:55.033)
Ha ha.
Matt (15:03.325)
Yes. Okay. Yeah, I'll tell you why. It's because they're so distant from the people. They're less accountable to the voters. Who in in the United States, when there's corruption, who roots it out the fastest? The House of Representatives. There was that guy from Florida. I can't remember his name. I Matt Gates, was that his name? but there's a number of them, right?
shawn (15:21.294)
Yeah.
Matt (15:27.831)
There's a House of Representatives guy. His last name was Jefferson. The FBI caught him with a bag of cash in his trunk. They got rid of him. There was a woman from a Democrat from Florida recently. Got rid of her. Like the slightest scent of corruption in the House of Representatives. And they take care of it and they get rid of those people. There was the the one guy from New York. Not Nancy. Listen, the the kind of corruption that we're talking about with Nancy Pelosi compared to some of the other people that we're talking about.
Levi (15:46.329)
Nancy Pelosi. She was inside of trading. Bam. Got rid of her like that. Whoever heard of her after that?
Levi (15:56.378)
Agreed, agreed. Yeah, yeah.
Matt (15:57.622)
Yeah, like what was the guy's name in New York that now he's just doing like cameos? I forget that guy's name. Got rid of him super fast. Like House of Representatives roots out corruption faster than any other federal struct federal government like agency.
shawn (16:06.02)
Yeah, I know what you're talking about.
Levi (16:12.273)
No, that's a good point. That's a good point. And you think it's due to the fact that they they have to be elected every time and and and people are mad about corruption. Why aren't we mad enough about corruption in the presidency to elect a non corrupt president?
Matt (16:17.837)
They have to be accountable to the voters.
shawn (16:25.348)
We're mad. We're mad, Lee.
Levi (16:27.025)
I mean I th but I think I think this president is uniquely corrupt. There was there was not this kind of corruption under any I I mean, even presidents I didn't really like. George W. Bush was a terrible president. Not corrupt. I mean that he was a liar, but I but I don't think it was for his own gain necessarily.
Matt (16:28.016)
Because we can't
Matt (16:35.593)
Nixon.
Matt (16:43.871)
Nixon was corrupt, Harding was corrupt, Grant was corrupt. Like we have corruption in the White House. And at no point is corruption ever punished in the White House. Ever. It never gets punished. Because there's too many layers of accountability between the people and the president. That's just I'll still give Levi the points because he preached in a way that it sounded he kind of looked like Dallin H. Oaks, I think, for a second, Sean was saying, and he he sounded like him for a second.
Levi (16:50.406)
Yeah.
Levi (17:11.513)
It's the bald cap. I'm wearing my bald cap today. Well, no, but I believe in this, and and if I could just take one more minute, I believe in this heterogeneous I I think things go better when th when they're heterogeneous. Like a society works better when you have some stabilizing institutions, right? When you have churches and and big corporations that say, Whoa, let's move slow. And then you have universities and and newspapers that say,
Matt (17:13.692)
Ha ha ha.
Levi (17:38.905)
No, no, no, let's move fast. And I think we find a really nice balance in there when we have this heterogeneity. We have different institutions that play different roles, and I like them all.
shawn (17:49.538)
D that's really inspiring, man. That's awesome.
Matt (17:52.024)
Well, and President Oakes would say forces compromise. And I think that that's a that's a strength of the system, that it forces compromise, but a definite weakness of the system, it reduces accountability. When like people can say whatever they want to say about how amazing America is, if ninety percent of Americans think corruption is widespread, that should concern all of us. Like there should be no point at which we're like, you know what, maybe things are really great in America.
Levi (17:55.953)
Mm-hmm.
Levi (18:01.871)
Maybe corruption is another question. Yeah.
Matt (18:20.983)
That's a h that's an insanely high number to find consensus about anything political to the ninety percent of Americans agreeing with that idea.
shawn (18:29.646)
Doesn't mean it's true, right? It's just is what we perceive. it is true? Okay. All right.
Matt (18:33.421)
I mean I don't know if it's true or not, right?
Levi (18:36.023)
Well, but and here then this these are the wisdom of the crowd questions, right? That if you know the the crowd gets it right a lot if if people are saying, you know, things are corrupt. I mean there's media influences in there as well, but there are a lot of things to reduce corruption, right? I think that you could talk about talk a lot about campaign finance and reduce corruption a lot in that. But
Matt (18:59.329)
But the reality is, yes, the United States is probably as corrupt as it's ever been in the history of the nation. And it doesn't surprise me that Americans are noticing that because it's very, very corrupt. But okay. I'm I'm happy with that. I'll I'm okay. Levi gets the points. We'll move on. Cause I really want to attack who's the guy in Argentina Sean loves so much? The the broom man. Yeah, yeah. Let's go after those guys a little bit.
Levi (19:21.221)
Havier Malay.
shawn (19:23.3)
VMA?
Levi (19:26.575)
Are we saying his name right? We better get his name right. He's probably gonna call in. He's all the time on our phone.
Matt (19:29.61)
It's J V
shawn (19:29.678)
Javier Millet.
Matt (19:33.165)
Okay, so both the United States and Argentina. This, by the way, Sean's gonna say this is a biased question. Yes, I know that this is biased. The way that I'm framing this question is clearly leaning in one direction. I'm not trying to be
shawn (19:49.018)
I know.
Levi (19:49.061)
Just wait, listener. Just wait for the for the for the the money the money question here. Yeah.
Matt (19:53.954)
Both both the US and Argentina decided to trust conservative leaders with their economies for the past few years. But these policies have not yet made everyday life better for many people in the United States or Argentina. In the United States, prices for food, housing, gas, and services remain very high after years of inflation. In Argentina, President Javier Millet has reduced inflation and government spending, but many people
Still face fewer jobs, lower wages, debt, and financial stress? Conservative economic policies have not clearly improved the daily lives of ordinary people. As a result, voters are becoming more concerned about jobs, wages, and the cost of living than about lowering inflation. When I look at the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America, I see more that aligns with the teachings of the Book of Mormon than I do when I read Adam Smith. So here's the question.
Is the failure of conservative economic policies God's way of nudging the world to a better path? I might feel biased. That might feel biased.
shawn (21:04.074)
You you qualified your question, so it's okay.
Matt (21:04.929)
But Levi go first, Levi.
Levi (21:08.347)
So I I w I wanted to yeah, I mean b because you know, only Nixon could go to China. Let me let me defend Javier Malay just to just to I mean, let's just lay some facts out, right? So there are some things that are not going well in Argentina. They're real wages are down, but they're down slightly, right? And but that's not good. Consumption is down also slightly.
investment, like private investment is down and debt levels are up. Those are all the bad things. Now, on the other hand, the GDP GDP is rising in Argentina and at a pretty good clip. It was three and a half or something. Like it's that's a that's a good growing economy. And there's a lot of oil production in there, which I suppose is up.
Matt (21:56.078)
How many how many billions of dollars did the US just dump into their economy?
Levi (22:01.335)
Right, yeah. Yeah, that could that could be it. But but I mean it it just if we're looking at what are the you know, there are some numbers that are bright spots in the in the Argentina con.
Matt (22:11.701)
In the abject poverty that people in Argentina deal with on a daily basis. Because Javier came in with his broom.
Levi (22:14.353)
I love how I love how Matt's taken my role as I feel like I'm always like the peanut gallery back there being like, Yeah, but they're lying. Yeah, but this is this is so great. Now Matt gets to be back there. It's a fun role, right, Matt? Yeah.
Matt (22:24.683)
Ha ha ha.
Matt (22:32.055)
Just saying, like these are like this is objective. Like, I try to be not like one side or the other. I don't know how anybody can, like, with a straight face look at their neighbor and say, the last two years have proven that conservative economic policies are good for the world. I don't know how the last 15-20 years anyone can say, every country that's moved to the right and adopted conservative fiscal policies has.
Levi (22:34.145)
Yeah.
Matt (22:58.817)
benefited the working class, benefited their country. Like it it's it's a failure. There's no place I can point to where I say conservative economic policies have been good for the average person. So I just I can't defend it anymore. So if I can't defend it, like I gotta find something better.
Levi (23:01.305)
Yeah. Or states.
shawn (23:19.588)
Matt, how do you live? How how's your life quality? Yeah? Is that from Adam Smith's principles? Yes, it sure is.
Matt (23:21.867)
My life is amazing, Sean, because I'm on the the K curve economy of the No No I do
Levi (23:28.165)
from Idaho, conservative Idaho politics.
Matt (23:31.073)
That has nothing to do with why my life is so good. My life is so good because I work for an organization that pays me based on what they think. Like they want us to always be a little bit above what they think the market would like I do not I do not work for a capitalist company. No, it's not the free market. I one hundred
shawn (23:34.04)
convenient.
Levi (23:34.254)
Agree.
shawn (23:44.376)
That sounds like the free market. They've that wor That is the free market. We value so much. We value so much what who you are, we want to give you value in return by living a really good lifestyle. That's free market. That's not
Matt (23:56.438)
I'll tell you I'll tell you how they decide salaries at the at my institution. They say everybody's gonna get paid exactly the same, no matter what field you're in, no matter we're gonna all everybody has the exact same wages. So our whole salary structure. Yeah, it's true.
Levi (24:08.593)
But is that true? So so no matter what field you're in, like there's maybe some seniority involved or something, but but no matter what field you're in, you're paid the same.
shawn (24:10.746)
Yeah, but that's not
Matt (24:16.511)
Like the number of years of service you have. Doesn't matter if you have a PhD or a master's degree. It's all it's all how long have you been teaching at BYU Idaho or teaching in the field. So religion prof
shawn (24:27.556)
But but there's also but there's also you've taught us it di it's not exactly a true statement, right? Because y if you decide you want to work five hours a semester and someone else works three hundred hours a semester, that's right. So it's not r you're not really getting paid the same. You're getting paid more by only working five hours. Yeah, I know, but but now you can go and start ten other bus yeah, okay. Yeah.
Matt (24:39.543)
We get paid the same.
Matt (24:43.703)
We're all getting paid exactly the same no matter what we do. Excel, don't excel.
Yeah. We have like if you were to say, hey, we've got the best English professor in the world here. why don't you go somewhere else and work and teach English at a univers? Why don't you go to Harvard and be an English professor? They would take a pay cut. But business professors would take a pay cut to come to BYU Idaho because business professors do really, really well at other universities. So there's certain fields at BYU Idaho that we have amazing, we have faculty that are probably paid three times what they could get at any other institution.
And then depending on another field, you have faculty members that are earning a third of what they could get at another institution. So there's nothing capitalist about my life, Sean.
shawn (25:26.574)
But Matt, it but Matt, it does sound like in your question that you are trying to ask basically which modern political ideology has got endorsed, or which economic Okay, you're not asking that?
Matt (25:37.343)
No. No. I'm s I'm asking, is God telling us capitalism, conservative fiscal policy is not right? Do something else. okay, I didn't know where
shawn (25:48.375)
Right, that's what you just said. You s you're trying to say there's these two ideologies. One is c let's call it capitalism, the other one is the the the socialism. And you're trying and you're trying to say the Book of Mormon clearly teaches that God has chosen and endorsed one of those economic policies. That's what you're trying to
Matt (25:56.684)
Socialism.
Matt (26:03.117)
I'm I'm saying like I can go through the Book of Mormon. If I look at the Democratic Socialist of America's platform and I compare that and say, can I find verses in the Book of Mormon that are consistent with that platform? I could find a dozen Book of Mormon verses that line up exactly with what the Democratic Socialists of America are saying, and I can find one, one.
shawn (26:21.538)
And I can find and I can find way more that contradict it.
Levi (26:24.395)
One, Sean can find one verse and here it can we'll read it in just a minute. Don't worry, Sean, we'll get to section one hundred thirty four. Don't worry.
Matt (26:27.294)
It has to do with
shawn (26:31.034)
The Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon talks hang on. The Book of Mormon talks about taking care of the poor. It talks about w work and respon accountability and personal accountability, personal responsibility, stewardship. It talks all over it about property and self-reliance. It talks all about it.
Matt (26:31.371)
That's in the Doctrine of Covenants, right? That's the Doctrine of Covenants. Book of Mormon, I find one, Helaman six.
Matt (26:47.361)
That that no whoa whoa whoa whoa None of those words you said Sean were none of those words were property, Sean. Those things you just said is democratic socialists of America.
Levi (26:49.785)
Free intercourse. Matt, go ahead, say it.
shawn (26:58.232)
You think that the no, the the it's self reliance is not democratic socialism. No, it's not. You can't self you can't self determine how much you pay in rent. We have to self we have to determine for you. We will control the market and control. That's not self that's not self reliance.
Matt (27:00.321)
Taking care of the poor. Stewardship no Yes it is. Yes it is.
Matt (27:14.135)
Sean, now I know you didn't read the platform of the Democrat Socialists of America.
Levi (27:17.785)
It's actually a great link. I hope you put it should be in the show notes 'cause like it's it's a really interesting read.
Matt (27:20.619)
Yeah, it'll be there. When you're talking about work and responsibility, that's democratic socialists of America. Empower workers so that they can have more control over their workplace. That's work and responsibility.
Levi (27:33.586)
Yeah, and some things like there's some things in that like they talk about reparations for American descendants of slaves. And that's like maybe one of the things you could point to that's like, whoa, that's really extreme. But most of this is like really middle of the road. Like it's not this isn't an extreme. Yeah. People are gonna love this. Yeah. Yeah. Strong unions. Yeah.
Matt (27:49.985)
Taking care of the poor, health care for people, making sure that people Yeah. Like
Yeah, the only thing I see in the Book of Mormon that supports Adam Smith is Helam and Six, when the Nephites and the Lamanites started trading with each other, both of those societies got better. But that's just trade. That's not capitalism. You can have democratic socialists of America and have free trade. They're not opposed to free trade.
shawn (28:22.254)
I feel like I feel like this I feel like Marxism and socialism, it it condemns the wealthy. Like its whole backbone is distracted by this this power imbalance struggle. But like for example, in Al and well, in Alma I don't think so. I I don't think it does. It can it condemns the love of wealth. It doesn't condemn wealth, right? Like Alma Alma One, for example. The Nephites have a a system where
Levi (28:34.875)
But don't you think that's scriptural too? Like don't you think the scriptures all over condemn the wealthy? Like way way harder than Marx.
shawn (28:52.172)
It is condemned if they don't take care of the poor and but but it it it it it condemns pride and persecution and exploitation and non freedom and and it really condemns them if they don't take care of the poor. But but convert what's that one say?
Matt (29:07.533)
Okay. What about fourth Nephi one? Fourth fourth Nephi one after Jesus comes to the Americas. What kind of government system did they have? And that they had all things in common. There were no Nephites, Lamanites, there were no ites, everybody shared, everybody was giving, right? Like that was almost two hundred years, the system in the Book of Mormon.
shawn (29:28.43)
But how did they come to that, Matt? They didn't they didn't come to that because someone forced them to be righteous. They came to that. You can't force righteousness. You can't force a soul to do the right thing and look at your neighbor and love them. That that socialism is the the the way to force people to try and be righteous. It it won't work ever.
Matt (29:40.567)
But but you can.
Matt (29:45.439)
I mean that's I understand that
shawn (29:46.702)
The Nephites and the Nephites came to that society because they were faithful and they followed Jesus Christ. They chose to do it, is the difference.
Matt (29:54.05)
But but all I'm saying is look at the behaviors of the people who chose to follow Jesus Christ. The people who chose to follow Jesus Christ did not have huge wealth inequality. So
shawn (29:59.877)
There you go.
shawn (30:06.084)
But in every s I I agree with you, they chose to do it. Okay, that's a good distinction. When the society chooses to be more socially democratic, then we're good. But when you rely on government to force it, not good, because now you remove all free agency and free will for us to choose to be principled and righteous.
Matt (30:24.661)
Is it is it good for the government to force people to live in a capitalist society? Cause they're forcing people either way. Either way the government is forcing people. Yeah.
Levi (30:32.015)
Right. There's violence on either end. Yeah. Mm-hmm.
shawn (30:34.564)
That way, wait, wait, you have explain that to me. How are I forcing peop like a capitalist society is removing all barriers to be free and have free exchange with each other. Go ahead.
Levi (30:43.333)
Wait, what? No, no, that's not that's not right at all. I mean, property is violence, right? Pro like property is is the claim to something and the claim to to the the right to exercise violence against somebody that uses it without your permission. Property is violence.
shawn (30:50.486)
No, it's not. It's not violence.
shawn (30:58.916)
But that those but those very words are defended in the in the doctrine and covenants. Literally says that we have the right to defend that which is our our property, which is my my body, which is my tree.
Levi (31:07.309)
Well, yes, and sometimes violence is justified, but property is violence.
shawn (31:14.126)
We yeah.
Matt (31:14.145)
But but what I'm saying, Sean, is if the if the government takes your tax dollars and uses it to subsidize oil companies, who then use that money to make themselves more wealthy and not share with everybody else. Well, that's the status quo, right? That's the what I'm saying. But but that's what we have, right?
shawn (31:25.284)
That's not capitalism. That's not capitalism. That's a violation of capitalism. That's not free market that's not free market at all, though. That's not what Adam Smith pre but you you brought up Adam Smith. He doesn't preach that. That would be in co exact contradiction to what he preaches.
Matt (31:39.392)
Okay. So then you would agree with me that the United States is not a capitalist system. Okay. So then if that's the case, then we we can ignore capitalism versus Marxism, and we can just talk about conservative policies, or as they so label them, versus democratic socialist of America policies. And conservative policies in the United States so far mean take money from the poor and subsidize the rich, and let the rich keep their money and
shawn (31:44.449)
yeah, I think so.
Matt (32:07.585)
They don't have to give back. We hope that it'll trickle down, but we don't compel it to trickle down. So we tax the poor and we subsidize oil companies and we subsidize Elon Musk's space program and we subsidize all these other programs for the rich. And we pass laws that make it difficult for poor people to access healthcare. So could we just say then, setting aside capitalism versus Marxism, that these conservative economic policies are not in line with the gospel, but perhaps Democratic Socialists of America.
are in line with the gospel.
shawn (32:39.818)
I'd I'd go with that. Yeah. I'd qualify, but that the democratic socialists just ha they they also have principles that violate, like the ones we talked about. Like controlling r rent, like deciding what Matt can charge someone for rent. That's that also violates.
Matt (32:48.343)
Yeah.
Matt (32:56.001)
So some of them are bad and some of them are good.
shawn (32:58.616)
Yeah, just like in conservatism. Some are bad, some are good. Correct.
Levi (33:02.331)
Well, and and my so my initial reaction to this was like as a lefty, like I I don't like the line that says, well, conservative policies always lead to worse economic results and therefore they're bad. Because I d I just don't believe that. I I believe that mostly what happens is whether you choose conservative or liberal economic policies, your economy's the same.
And we we see that, you know, like they're there little wiggles here and there, but mostly you can choose to provide everybody with healthcare and fund innovation and fund schooling and protect the environment, and you'll get the same economy as if you didn't do any of those things. And for me, as a lefty, I say, well, why would I not do that then? Like, why, if I can do all of these good things, educate people, protect people.
shawn (33:53.824)
good question.
Levi (33:58.46)
Take care of the poor. Why would I not do that if it doesn't hurt the economy at all? I'd totally do that. Why be mean? I've said this before, right? But
shawn (34:04.184)
Levi's Levi's on fire today. That's a good question.
Matt (34:07.703)
Well, and just to just to clarify in the question, I wasn't saying conservative economic policies have failed to grow the economy. I'm saying they've failed to make life better for the ordinary s people who live in those countries. C conservative policies do fail to you see a you lose your middle class and the the poor class gets worse off over time and things become more expensive and harder to afford.
Levi (34:18.416)
Mm.
shawn (34:20.26)
So same kind of mm, good point. Okay.
shawn (34:33.058)
this but Matt, you conf the reason I got confused is because you conflated modern conservatism with Adam Sm principles of Adam Smith. Yeah, you conflated those, and that's why it got me confused. Because I support I would support principled theories of, you know, times pr principle principles I'll support. The way that modern political parties implement them, whether it's left or right, seems to be always ever changing. And so when when so
Matt (34:39.219)
Adam sir. I see.
Levi (34:40.816)
Mm.
Matt (34:43.221)
Mm.
Matt (34:56.979)
Okay. Well I'm gonna I'm gonna give Sean the points because that's good, Sean. I I just have to attack a party.
shawn (35:02.143)
Ha ha.
Levi (35:04.507)
No, but I and I like that. I like Sean's point as well, that like let's okay. I I I I think that there's obviously too much too much of this yay, my team, rah-rah going on. And and Sean often takes this point where he says, Look, there's prints there's not true and false pro parties or political factions. There's true and false principles and we stick to those. And I agree with that, yeah.
Matt (35:27.841)
The only thing I'm concerned about, because before the pandemic, I was all in favor of raising the middle the the minimum wage because I don't like that people are not earning a living wage. And then in the pandemic, with all that inflation, wages went up, right? And I don't know the causal arrow if wages went up and then everything became more expensive, or if everything became more expensive, so you had to raise wages. But this is always my concern is if you raise wages.
does everything just become more expensive and it it has a net zero effect? That's the thing that I haven't been able to find the answer to yet. But I would love for us to go back to the nineteen sixties ish, nineteen fifties, where the real wage of Americans was sufficient for a single so for one person to go to work and have enough money to provide for the entire family. I want to get back to that for the entire world. Cause to me that doesn't seem unreasonable.
But I don't know how to do it.
Levi (36:28.847)
Which wouldn't mean that people would have to choose just one income. Just means they would have the possibility, right? That yeah.
shawn (36:28.931)
Yeah.
Matt (36:33.707)
Right. You just can if you want to. But but we all know people in our lives who would like to say, one father or mother goes to work and the other father or mother stays home and raises the kids. And you can't afford to do that in very many places in America today. And to me, that's a failure of conservative economic policies.
shawn (36:53.934)
That was a nice segue into the next that was you're a genius at this, Matt. That was a perfect segue into this next topic.
Matt (36:59.713)
Thank you. Okay, so students in many wealthy countries are performing worse in math, reading, and science, while parents are also showing less interest in their children's education. Students whose families regularly ask about school performance do much better, but digital devices and artificial intelligence can distract students when they are used to used too much or without enough guidance. Sorry, when those devices are used too much or without enough guidance.
Asian countries such as China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan have the highest scores because they control classroom technology and give teachers a strong role in education. Meanwhile, American satisfaction with the quality of K-12 education in the US has slipped to 32%, a new low in Gallup's 27-year trend, and it's down 11 percentage points from two years ago. So here's the question.
Control over schools is the most local form of government we have. So does the failing K twelve system in the United States show one of the flaws with this hyperlocalized federalism?
shawn (38:06.308)
Diva, what do you think?
Matt (38:06.487)
Cause
Levi (38:09.901)
I think schools are not feeling and it's a PR effort to undermine schools. In intellectualism is old, old.
Matt (38:16.909)
No, Sean, Levi lives in Levi lives in Portland, Oregon. I'm telling you, Levi, I have a new class of freshmen, and the things that they don't know horrify me. I'm like, yes. Far less prepared now than they used to be. Like, even basic mathematics. Yeah, it's what happens, like if you live in a place like Levi where
Levi (38:30.545)
Is that right? You think you think students are less prepared now than they used to be?
what changed?
Matt (38:42.475)
Your community values education and they are willing to pay taxes to support schools and have good teachers and all that sort of stuff, you have a tremendous education for your children. And no matter whether you're rich or poor, your kids are getting a high quality public education. But if you live in a place like I do, where the community values your football team performance, your cheerleading, your dance team, all of the travel and social things more than they value the curriculum and what people actually learn in school.
Then your kids grow up not knowing anything. They have a really great social life, but they don't really know any marketable skills. Like if somebody came to me from rural Idaho, rural pick any place in America and said, out of high school, I want an entry-level position. I would know that I would have to invest thousands of dollars to train them in basic skills before I could let them actually have a job. They're not even, we don't leave high school even ready for like entry-level work, let alone.
College level coursework. It's bad.
Levi (39:44.483)
Mm.
shawn (39:44.551)
Samat, I I think the reason your last topic transitions well to this one is because I don't think you can blame things on I don't think you can assess like is it federalism or not that is it you know good bad. I think the report that you provided is v was really clear. If you want kids to learn, you have to manage technology. You you have to give attention to disadvantaged students. And then the two most important factors are you need teacher access, and the most important factor is
Matt (39:59.266)
Yeah.
shawn (40:13.762)
You need involved parents. And so I like the last topic you were like, okay, we I want an a com an economy that maximizes the average American's ability to choose to. One works, one is giving all their attention to their children because that's the best outcome. Right. So I don't know that I don't know that the question about federalism really applies here as much as it is like, let's identify the things that make for successful schooling. It's not as it's not curriculum. It's not like those things matter way less.
Matt (40:16.011)
Right.
shawn (40:44.132)
Then teacher parents involvement and teachers giving attention and giving attention to disadvantaged students. That's what the report said.
Matt (40:45.963)
Matt (40:51.661)
So the reason that it matters is if you have parents that choose not to be involved in their kids' education, then what is it that the parents are going to demand of teachers? And what is it they're going to demand of principals and and superintendents and all that stuff? They're going to demand that that school what it seems to me is they want the school to basically be like babysitters for their kids, right? They're not as interested in, are my kids learning? Are my kids growing? And that by the way, they don't even know, right? Because they're not.
shawn (41:14.212)
Yep. Right.
Matt (41:21.367)
They're not paying attention. They're they're the ones that get really mad when you say, we're going to introduce a new math curriculum because kids learn better with this different math. And they're like, well, I don't know that kind of math. That must be a bunch of garbage. Let's not switch to that because I don't understand it. Right. So so they they get their hands in the curriculum that they don't understand. They they choose the curriculum that makes it easiest for them as parents. And then they say, let's fund after school activities because then they can kind of babysit my kids and watch them until I get home from work at the end of the day. Or
shawn (41:21.7)
That's right.
shawn (41:48.77)
Yep. Yep.
Levi (41:50.776)
Mm.
Matt (41:51.192)
Teach them social skills or teach them whatever skills. And so that's a failure of local government because when the parents don't want to don't want to like get involved themselves, then they ask the schools to do something different than what schools were intended to do in order to alleviate their own burden that they're not picking up on their own.
Levi (42:09.669)
And you think that that if a school didn't have to listen locally to parents, that they could just say, That's actually not our job, we're gonna continue to prioritize social studies and math and literacy.
Matt (42:19.979)
Yes. That's right. If we have if you had federal government, big brother, way, way, way, way, way at the top, deciding what everybody needs to know, then like you guys were talking about the forced compromise in the Constitution, you have to for you have to fight, fight, fight, fight, fight. And then that forced compromise, schools would only focus on the things that there's consensus about in America. And that forcing of consensus at that level leads to
better standards than when you go super super local. It's the James in Federalist 10, James Madison talks about this. Like when you have a large enough republic and there's all these different factions and you force them to cooperate with each other or compromise, you're going to get only the stuff that matters most in that federal system. But when you get make it local enough, then those little factions can can control things so much that it leads to worse outcomes. So in like from a big political theory idea,
Schools is an example of where hyperlocal government fails because one small faction can dominate a community and they can control everything in that community, and it leads to worse outcomes for people that live in that community. Whereas if you had, if you force compromise on the national level, then you would get better outcomes because everybody would have the same standard, and you would only have the standards that everybody can agree to on consensus. And then that's better for everybody.
shawn (43:48.482)
What do you say of that, Levi?
Levi (43:50.002)
And and you and it's less you don't think that there's a danger that a a bigger centralized government would just impose bad standards on everyone, would just say, Look, we love cheerleading and basketball and we don't care about math. You don't think there's enough basketball fans nationally?
Matt (44:08.383)
In if the big centralized if if the big centralized government chose basketball and cheerleading over everything else, it's because there was sufficient support for that across the entire nation, that that's what arose from this compromise process. And so that if that's what makes its way to the top, then okay, that's on us, right? But it's way easier for that to happen at a local level than for that to happen at the national level. I think what happens at the national level.
Levi (44:22.448)
Mm-hmm.
shawn (44:30.506)
Ha.
Levi (44:32.753)
Mm.
shawn (44:34.69)
It is, but the it it i okay, if that's true though, but federalism allows for an individual, and I agree, not everyone has the means to just up and root their life and change, but it at least gives more control to the individual when I am a part of a community who's making taking you know, a localized community making those bad decisions that I don't agree with. I many of us can move, we can change to the next one. I have choices, I have options. If you allow one option and the majority makes a bad decision.
And says that it's, you know, it's it's field hockey and it's ice hockey that is gonna be priority over, you know, social studies. We have no choice. We're stuck. We have a a centralized government making the bad decisions for us and now we're all stuck. I think federalism still proves out to be the better for the more for the more more people. It's not perfect, but it's better for more people.
Levi (45:22.789)
And Matt, you're saying that we would be pitting like the hockey dads against the soccer dads, right? That like in the federal system, the hockey dads would say, Well, hockey's gotta be part of the curriculum. We gotta have time for hockey. And the soccer dads would say, Hockey, what is that? we need soccer. And in the end, both of those would wash out and only math would win. Is that the idea? huh. Okay.
Matt (45:44.526)
Correct. That's the idea. Yeah. The people who say we need to teach Christianity in schools. And then these people say, but we need to teach atheism in schools. And these people say we need to teach Buddhism in schools. And in the end, they say, okay, maybe we don't need to teach religion. Yeah, maybe we should just teach ethics or something like that. But yeah, what wins out is the stuff that matters. Like in the end, we'd say, okay, the national standard that everybody has to meet, there would be some set national standard that everybody would agree to.
Levi (45:57.776)
Maybe not teach any of those. Yeah.
Hm, an interesting thought.
Matt (46:13.781)
If you want to add to that in an area, take if you want to add to different things in your local area, fine. But there should be some national standard that everybody has to meet.
Levi (46:23.761)
Okay, I like that. And I liked your personal stories about underprepared students. I mean, I came here ready to say that's made up and this is just the right this is just the Powell memo. Come back to tell us that we just gotta undermine you guys heard of the Powell memo? Readers, you should look up the Powell memo. It was this memo in the 70s that said, Conservatives, we're losing the battle. We gotta fight this at the sch scholastic level, and we gotta make sure that there's
Matt (46:24.194)
I mean
Matt (46:29.409)
It's not
Levi (46:52.645)
the right conservative professors and teachers in there. And so that l this I think was the beginning of the conservative battle against intellectualism to undermine the credibility of professors and teachers. And but but Matt, I'm I'm hearing your personal experience saying it's it's real, huh? That schools really are suffering.
Matt (47:06.829)
You know
Matt (47:13.131)
You know, the average teacher who comes out of college as a secondary or like a high school teacher, like the really good ones last five years. It's typically two years. Like we we teach the most talented, gifted people who can't wait to get out there and make a difference in K-12 education. And they spend one or two years in that system and they say, I'm out. I want nothing to do with that. Like it's not propaganda. It's a broken system. And and there there's nobody out there fixing it.
shawn (47:36.792)
Yeah, I've experien yeah. Yeah.
Matt (47:42.326)
And by the way, the incentive structure that capitalism is why don't I just create a curriculum and sell it to a whole bunch of school districts and then I'm making a lot of money off of tax dollars. And whether the kids improve or don't improve, the school district can just say, Hey, you gotta talk to the curriculum provider. They're the ones deciding what we learn in the classroom. We're not the ones that chose it. It's you know.
Levi (47:59.1)
Yeah.
Levi (48:02.373)
Well, and the push toward you know, vouchers and charter schools and whatever. Also, you see the market in there that somebody says, I'm gonna just skim off the top, undercut all the teachers' unions, underpay my teachers and and make some make some money. Yeah. Yeah.
Matt (48:19.189)
Yeah. All right, here's the big question. Let's talk prohibition. Prohibition, for those who don't know, was a period in the United States from nineteen twenty to nineteen thirty-three when the government banned the production, sale, and transportation of alcoholic drinks. Supporters believed alcohol caused crime, poverty, family problems, and poor health, all of which happened to be true. However, many p people continued to drink, and illegal bars called Speakeasies were common.
Organized crime groups made large profits by selling alcohol illegally, and government officials often accepted bribes. Prohibition also created problems for courts and police because it was difficult to enforce the law. In 1933, the US ended prohibition because it had not stopped drinking and had created many new problems. In my view, the scriptures could lead to two different takes on this issue. One, if alcohol consumption is viewed primarily as a matter of personal health, private lifestyle, or religious observance,
Passing a law that coerces compliance is directly counter to Alma 30, verse 7 and Doctrine and Covenants 134, verse 4. In this view, using state police power to enforce a personal virtue violates individual agency and oversteps the proper role of government. The other view is that the state has the authority to intervene when private actions generate demonstrable public harm. That's supported in Doctrine 30, Doctrine and Covenants 134, verse 7.
shawn (49:43.32)
Mm-hmm.
Matt (49:43.606)
If an activity consistently leads to domestic abuse, theft, breach of contract, or public violence, a government can regulate or suppress it to enforce spiritual not to enforce spiritual righteousness, but to protect innocent parties from external injury. So here's a big question. What is the latter day lens on government policies that might control conscience or suppress the freedom of the soul? That comes from Doctrine and Covenants 134 that says government should never
Control conscience or suppress the freedom of the soul.
shawn (50:18.468)
Did you guys know the statistic that of the convicteds convicted murderers or homicide offenders, up to sixty percent that have been or put in jail were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offense. Did you know that?
Matt (50:30.711)
Doesn't surprise me. Yeah.
shawn (50:32.74)
Sixty percent.
Matt (50:35.275)
I say if we got rid of alcohol consumption in the US, we'd reduce crime significantly.
Levi (50:35.503)
The
shawn (50:40.847)
Yeah.
Levi (50:40.933)
Yeah. I I mean, so I always laugh when people bring up like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, right? Was this horrific gang attack in the like in the twenties or something? And these these were two gangs fighting over turfs related to alcohol. And they list this and they say, see, prohibition never works. It's just we had all these all this crime. It was it was seven people, and those are seven souls that's important, right?
But like alcohol kills 50 times that every day. It's like you had 50 St. Valentine's Day massacres every single day. And so if the current state of alcohol is the cure, what could have been the disease, right? Like, well, I count what? Like, there's no way it was worse. There's no way we've saved lives by making alcohol legal.
shawn (51:34.203)
So well said, Levi, but the question really is this though. Does God teach us that the freedom to kill ourselves with alcohol is more important than living in a society that is trying to force us to be good, force us to be moral, force us what's right and wrong. The agency that God gives us inv includes us making bad decisions, including consuming alcohol and ruining our lives.
Levi (51:41.158)
Yeah.
Matt (52:03.575)
So I didn't I didn't know this, but I I noticed that when I would go to other countries, I was thirsty all the time because they don't have drinking fountains in other countries the way they do in the United States. And so I was like, why is it that there are so many drinking fountains in the United States? And it's because the reason people were drinking alcohol back in the day is because that was the clean, safe liquid you could drink. And so a lot of people in the United States were like, if we had free public, clean water.
That would incentivize people to stop drinking alcohol and to start drinking clean water. And so a lot of government resources were invested around the United States into clean water to persuade people to not use alcohol. So I'm I'm in favor of government saying, let's nudge people to try to persuade them to do the right thing. But if they don't, then you get you gotta have carrots and sticks, right? We're gonna nudge you, but there's a point at which we nudged you enough and you failed to take the carrot.
shawn (52:44.004)
Wow.
Matt (53:02.315)
So we're gonna use sticks and I mean that's yeah.
Levi (53:05.199)
Yeah, well, and the sticks, I love that you use the word nudge, because I was going to use the same thing too, right? You can have a positive nudge or or a negative nudge, right? And I I I love this idea that the clean water is a nudge in the right direction. And my proposal for a nudge for a negative nudge would be to have a an alcohol license. So you I think I mentioned this before, that you should have a license that you can apply for to
consume alcohol to buy it in a store or or buy it in a bar. And think how many good things could come of this, right? So you could, you know, when somebody is a domestic abuser and alcohol's got is a component, then the judge could say, I'm taking your alcohol license, or you're drinking and driving. You lose your driver's license and your alcohol license. Or even when you're like trying to get off of alcohol, you could
hand it off or you tear it up or you could you know like just give yourself another obstacle between you and bad behavior lovely right like we could do so much good if we just if we just gave people a nudge toward better behavior.
shawn (54:16.716)
It it does seem pragmatic. It seems everything you guys are saying seems practical. But there was a phrase that Matt always threw at me on our mission. Sean, when people do the right things for the wrong reasons, it will always be a disaster. And this seems like just more when you get government government involved to try to force principled righteous decisions, there's and the motive isn't in and of itself, you know, deep inside of me.
that I want to obey health laws or mental health laws, right? I alcohol will be a d this will destroy me mentally and physically, spiritually. It doesn't seem like it works.
Matt (54:59.277)
So we've talked about this before, how people decide moral right and wrong based on government policy, right? When when I sit on a plane and they tell me don't smoke in the restrooms, that sends a message to me that like not just smoking in the restrooms is wrong, but maybe smoking is wrong. And maybe I shouldn't do that in public places. I think one of the reasons that that works, and and Sean would say, well, just do like public ads or something like that to persuade people. But one of the reasons it works is because
When the government takes a position on an issue, that says to people, everybody around me, or at least most people around me, have have come to determine that this is the proper way to live, right? There's nothing morally wrong about me putting a bunch of trash in my yard and having the ugliest looking yard in the neighborhood. But when the neighborhood gets together and says to me, We don't like the way your house looks. Please do something about it, right? We've tried mowing your lawn for you. We've tried gently like pushing some of your trash some other place.
You don't seem to be getting the message. We're gonna get together and tell you.
shawn (55:59.951)
We tried to remove the to the we tried to remove the toilet that you put in your front yard that had a flower bed in it.
Matt (56:03.213)
We think it's it was a great idea to use your old toilet as like a fountain in your front yard. No, my wife wants to do it. It's her dream.
Levi (56:09.489)
Wait, did Matt do this?
shawn (56:09.764)
Shut up.
Levi (56:14.063)
Well, I'm taking this very personally 'cause I definitely have the worst lawn on the block. I d you know, like, but I'm not gonna compete with these guys. Come on.
Matt (56:20.279)
But but when
But when everyone gets together and says, we've decided to pass an ordinance to outlaw your behavior, then it sends a message to you like, this is probably something I shouldn't do.
shawn (56:31.578)
Yeah. But you you you use the but you use the key word force versus persuasion. There's a huge difference there. When you outlaw and you force people to make better decisions versus persuading them, like I think the scriptures are chock full of, yeah, make a good case. Go proselytize, persuade. Don't trick, don't coerce, and don't force.
Matt (56:57.175)
Wha what if I nudge? What if I nudge? What if I say
Levi (56:58.821)
Yeah, so I was gonna say this doesn't have to be black and white. It doesn't have to be like either you have no choices or you have every choice, right? You could just say, you can still choose to drink alcohol, you just have to have a license for it. Or you can still choose to drink alcohol, but we're not gonna take away your water, so you're more inclined to drink alcohol. We're just gonna give you lots of better options, right?
shawn (56:59.681)
Not just persuasion.
Matt (57:23.553)
When I was a kid, you could get an award in school for perfect attendance, right? And that told people I should go to school. And you can that's a government nudging kids into the idea that you should try to get perfect attendance in elementary school.
shawn (57:38.788)
So are you guys okay? I'm okay with nudges that maybe provide some benefits or incentive. I mean, I think some of you wouldn't agree with all of that. But when it crosses a line over to punishment and force, I'm against it.
Levi (57:55.004)
Right, how strong a nudge, right? I th you know, like what if you yeah, what if what if you your tax rate doubles if you still have an alcohol license? Yeah, I mean that seems like a like a bigger nudge than I want. Or you know what I mean? Like those are
shawn (58:08.452)
But but this is a complicated issue. Like look at look at what a big part of society decided that, and religious people decided that marriage should be defined as a man and a woman. That's better for our society. So let's give benefits to that. Well, that backfired when a lot of people are like, Well, what are you saying? I'm not I don't get those benefits. So now your nudging, your nudging makes an lays an unequal playing field and discriminates against a lot of people. So get out
Levi (58:22.853)
Mm-hmm.
Levi (58:31.313)
Uh-huh.
shawn (58:38.478)
To me, get out of it. Let let yeah, I don't know. I'd lean towards more of a libertarian side.
Matt (58:42.689)
Well, the nudging the nudging works until there's a sufficient group of people who say, We disagree with the message you're trying to send as a government, and that's the way things are, right? So I might be the only person in my neighborhood with a terrible lawn, but and they have a rule that says you have to mow your lawn or whatever. But as more people move in and say, I actually kind of like an ugly lawn, and then that changes over time, then the government can change the message that it's sending to people, right? When you live in a predominantly Christian world.
Pass all the Christian values you want. But when you when people move in who have different values, you have to change and you have to adapt to the people that live in your community.
Levi (59:21.507)
Sean's example was really great though, that like to to regard like DOMA as as a nudge, right? Defensive marriage act, right? To just say, okay, I mean, you can still be gay. We're not gonna police that, but we're just gonna make it a little bit harder for you because we think being gay is less than being straight. And and that was, I mean, the mistake was basing it on that value, but.
Matt (59:28.929)
Defensive marriage act.
Levi (59:47.855)
But I like Sean's point that that there's you know, maybe a nudge isn't always good. and it it did eventually change, but I I don't know, maybe we should think hard.
Matt (59:57.586)
Yeah, well, Defensive Marriage Act came at a time when it was a very contentious issue because there were people pushing for equality, right? At at a particular time. And this was their way of saying, This is how we can fight back. That's very different than the hundred fifty years before it in the United States, where gay people stayed in the closet because they were afraid of what consequences might come their way. So
Levi (01:00:04.878)
Mm, yeah.
Levi (01:00:19.153)
Yeah, yeah. Too strong a nudge, right? But Sean would say it was just a I mean, Sean might not say this, but but the point was to say that was just a nudge. We weren't telling him you can't be gay. We were just saying, here's an extra nudge to maybe be straight. Sounds stupid, right? But it is consistent with that sort of nudge principle and maybe illustrates where it can go awry.
shawn (01:00:41.486)
Yeah, yeah. I mean and you guys would be you guys are i excited about this when the people that are doing the nudging are doing what you like. But y when they start doing what you don't like, you're against it, right? So I the I to me the answer is I don't think the constitution has guidance to say the government is supposed to go and try and dictate what is moral and righteous and good in society. I don't think that's there. I think it's more
Levi (01:00:42.534)
Yeah.
Matt (01:01:07.713)
We do that all the time. We do that all the time.
shawn (01:01:09.708)
Yeah, no, but it doesn't pret but not not supported by the const like the the f the these founding principles. That's a modern and that's a modern interpretation.
Matt (01:01:15.041)
founding principle said that the founding principle said it's okay to say no, the founding principle said it's okay to say that black people are three fifths of a person. Like that's in the constitution, right? Slavery was
shawn (01:01:24.696)
Yeah, but everyone agrees that that was that that was not inspired and that was a bad thing and you should take that out. Everyone agrees on that.
Matt (01:01:31.447)
Today, the beauty of the Constitution is that it allows the government to change with the times. So as society decides that slavery is bad, there's a system in place to reflect that in the Constitution and in the laws. So we're not all going to agree all the time about what's morally right and what's morally wrong. But if there's enough of a consensus that alcohol consumption is not good for our society, then it's good to have government there to say, let's help all these other people who don't seem to get the message.
Let's do something to let them know you'll be better off if you don't consume alcohol or marijuana or whatever. Or coffee. Yeah. Hey, good job, you guys.
shawn (01:02:06.476)
Interesting.
shawn (01:02:10.607)
Ha ha.
Levi (01:02:13.583)
Or root for the Broncos or other things that are not good for your health. Do not do these things, you guys. We're helping you out here. Broncos fans, there's an extra tax on you.
Matt (01:02:15.969)
Ha ha ha.
shawn (01:02:17.146)
Ha ha ha ha.
Matt (01:02:20.609)
That's awesome.
shawn (01:02:24.59)
Listening to Taylor Swift?
Matt (01:02:24.717)
Hey. That's that's when we incentivize, right? Taylor Swift is good for America.
shawn (01:02:33.134)
No Matt. Stop it.
Matt (01:02:35.307)
Hey, thanks you guys for joining me. Everybody who's listening, thanks for joining us this week and we'll talk to you again next week. Have a good day.
People on this episode
Podcasts we love
Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.
Mission Stories
Shawn Record