Happy birthday, Prof. Epstein! Thanks for stimulating my neurons and stirring me by example to lifelong learning.

This is a great thread, DocJay.

To add to Tom's insightful comment, I'm reminded about a major philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives. When confronting serious problems liberals try to come up with a solution. Conservatives assume that long-standing problems have been long-standing because the easy solutions have been tried and failed. We assume that some problems are intractable and realize that there are no solutions, only trade offs.

Sound like we're on the same page.

Death threats? Yikes. Hasn't happened to me yet, but you're right, DMV reports don't get me any love.

(2 of 2)

I wouldn't object to making psychosis another reportable condition. We've gone too far since the 60s in protecting the rights of the mentally ill so that now they have a right to wander the streets babbling to themselves, sleep on bus benches, and get firearms. The details might be very difficult, but I would support making it easier to institutionalize schizoprhenics against their will, or to make their life outside of an institution conditional on supervised medication ingestion and regular psychiatric follow up. We're treating psychosis as if it's an unpopular life choice. It's not, it's a disease that renders people unable to make decisions for themselves (very similar to children). We should start shifting the law to match that reality.

(1 of 2)

Hang on a minute. You know I like you, DocJay, but let's see if we can tease this issue out a little.

We're already mandated reporters for a lot of issues. If we see physical evidence of domestic violence we're legally required to call the cops even if the patient/victim doesn't want it reported. (I've been there, done that.) If a patient has memory loss or unexplained loss of consciousness we have to report them to the DMV so their ability to drive can be reassessed. (Done that too.) I'm as crazy a libertarian as anyone here and I don't have a major objection to either of these requirements. And failing to do them carries criminal repercussions. They strike me as well within the appropriate scope of gov't action.

As it is now we have to report any suicidal or homicidal intent in our patients -- that is a clear exception to our duty of confidentiality to them.

BTW, "Wrapping laziness in the cloak of tradition" is a terrific line. I will steal it.

You three are really fun to listen to.

Drat. I feared that her engagement would lead to that. Didn't Peter or someone have to sign off on such a decision? You guys let editors just get married willie-nillie? What kind of operation is that?

Harumph. I liked that podcast. Perhaps in 30 years you can do a reunion Where-Are-They-Now podcast in which you note that the entitlements you paid payroll taxes for are gone...

Terrific podcast. Always fascinating. Thank you.

Well said.

Would this be a good time to beg for more "Young Guns" podcasts, or have they disappeared for good?

Fred, allow me to join the chorus of kudos for the Ricochet Newbie Instruction Manual. Very strong work.

Dear newbies: Welcome! Later we'll start bickering about some obscure point of contention deep in the weeds of conservative philosophy, but for now, it's a lovefest!

Yikes. Sorry to run afoul of the CoC.

[hangs head in shame]

I got pretty upset there. I'll try to behave from now on.

[redacted for Code of Conduct]

You can be pro-life and still understand that the grief of losing a 6 year-old child dwarfs the loss of a miscarriage. And you can believe that a fetus is fully human and still understand that the depravity of putting two rife rounds in a child's chest dwarfs the decision to have an abortion. It is the most thoughtless thing (and at the worst time) to compare the two.

[redacted for Code of Conduct]

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

It's a tough time for a lot of people, some of your potential members included. My wife and I are members, and we would certainly pony up for a "gold" membership to help you out. We're struggling too...

Would getting more podcast sponsors help? I suspect a lot of us are business owners who might want the publicity of sponsoring a podcast occasionally.

Or to put it another way, the American Founders imagined the ideal of a secular gov't (at least a secular federal gov't) governing a largely religious populace. I have the impression that in Israel some of the secular Israelis feel like they're chafing under theocratic rules passed by the ultra-orthodox minority -- an inversion of the American Founders -- religious laws on a secular population. I'd love to hear Judith's take and Damian discuss what role, if any, the C of E (or religion in general) has in UK politics.

Thank you, Judith and Damian, for a very interesting podcast. Please keep it up.

May I suggest a future topic? How 'bout the role that religion plays in politics in your respective countries? There is much friction in Israel (or perhaps much exaggeration of the friction) between the secular and the ultra-orthodox that is sometimes played out in the parliament.

I have no reason to believe that when calamity strikes, then suddenly people will agree with us. When calamity strikes, people who always turned to gov't for solutions will demand an even bigger gov't. Economic collapse and social breakdown is as likely to cause the masses to want totalitarianism to restore order rather than individual liberty and economic growth.

Which is to say, don't think that hitting bottom will get them on our side.