Utopia, you are standing in it!

George Marshall: Defender of the Republic
by David Roll
704 pages
Dutton Caliber (Penguin Random House)
Published: July 2019

David L. Roll’s “George Marshall: Defender of the Republic” was published in 2019. Roll is Senior Counsel at Steptoe & Johnson and the author of a widely-praised biography of Franklin Roosevelt’s notoriously unconventional adviser Harry Hopkins. Roll also co-authored a biography of Louis Johnson, Harry Truman’s second defense secretary.

Anyone who has read a biography of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower has encountered George Marshall (1880-1959). During his five decades of public service he was chief of staff to “Black Jack” Pershing, Chief of Staff of the Army, a Five-Star General, Special Envoy to China, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. He was also the driving force behind the Marshall Plan which re-built post-war Europe (and for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953).

I have shared five videos (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V) that make the case for capitalism.

Here’s a sixth example.

The video notes that poverty was the natural condition for humanity (notwithstanding the economic illiteracy of Congresswoman Pressley).

But then, starting a couple of hundred years ago, capitalism gained a foothold and – for the first time in world history – there were nations with mass prosperity.

We learn about how various places became rich, including the United States, Hong Kong, and New Zealand.

The narrator also pointed out that Ireland experienced a period of dramatic market-driven growth.

Which gives me a good excuse to make the following comparison, which shows the dramatic divergence between Ireland and Greece beginning in the mid-1980s.

Why the stunning divergence (one of many examples I’ve collected)?

Ireland

Catherine of Aragon (December 16, 1485 – January 7, 1536) was Queen of England and Ireland as the first wife of King Henry VIII from their marriage on June 11, 1509 until their annulment on May 23, 1533. She was previously Princess of Wales as the wife of Henry’s elder brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales.

Infanta Catherine was born at the Archbishop’s Palace of Alcalá de Henares near Madrid, on the early hours of December 16, 1485. She was the youngest surviving child of King Fernando II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. Catherine was quite short in stature with long red hair, wide blue eyes, a round face, and a fair complexion.

She was descended, on her maternal side, from the House of Lancaster, an English royal house; her great-grandmother Catherine of Lancaster, after whom she was named, and her great-great-grandmother Philippa of Lancaster were both daughters…

Back in 2014, I shared a video explaining why the “rule of law” is important for a just and free society.

Here’s another video on the same point.

When I discuss rule of law (generally when explaining the various components that are used to calculate rankings of economic freedom), I often use a shortcut definition – namely that rule of law exists when government officials don’t have arbitrary power.

In other words, rule of law is present when even politicians and bureaucrats have to adhere to laws and rules.

Where is the rule of law strongest?

According to the World Justice Project, Scandinavian nations are at the top, led by Denmark.

Other European nations – and European offshoot nations – dominate the rankings (there is a benefit to Western Civilization).

A handful of East Asian jurisdictions also get good scores.

And you’ll notice I had to include…

There is a lot of misinformation out there and I find this to be the case when it comes to European Royalty.

I’ll admit I’m a bit of stickler for correct historical information, especially when it comes to the usage of titles, their history and how they are written in both news media and social media.

I have an account on Twitter for this blog and that is where I run into a great deal of misinformation.

With titles I think people just call the royals whatever they want and are making up their own rules. I also have received much criticism on Twitter for my stance on proper use of titles and clearing up misinformation.

It makes me wonder where the limits and boundaries are? Should we say screw all the rules and just call them what you want?

Recently the topic of the title of Duke of Edinburgh…

I created the Eighth Theorem of Government to illustrate the difference between well-meaning people (who want to help the poor) and zero-sum people (who seem to think some people are poor because other people are rich).

This raises the interesting question of whether folks in the latter group are misguided or malicious?

For what it’s worth, I assume most people who fixate on inequality simply don’t understand the issue.

I like to think that they would change their minds if – for instance – they were shown Scott Winship’s devastating, slam-dunk response to Gabriel Zucman.

But there are others (like Zucman) who almost certainly know better, yet they push the inequality narrative for political or ideological reasons.

The bureaucrats at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development definitely also belong in the malicious category.

I first exposed the OECD’s disingenuous approach back in 2012, noting that the Paris-based bureaucrats used…

Some years ago now the UK Supreme Court ruled that a Christian bakery company had not been guilty of sexual orientation discrimination when it declined to produce a cake for an activist designed to convey a political slogan in favour of same-sex marriage- see Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd [2018] UKSC 49 (10 Oct 2018) and my comment at the time. Now, after a long delay, an challenge to that decision by the customer, Mr Lee, has been finally dismissed by the European Court of Human Rights: see here where a copy of the judgment in Lee v United Kingdom (ECHR 4th section, Application no. 18860/19, 6 Jan 2022) can be downloaded. (A short summary is available on this page.)

(A preliminary comment on the nature of this challenge should be made. The details are spelled out clearly in an excellent comment on the decision by Prof Mark…

Yesterday I wrote of the death of Edward the Confessor, King of the English. His death sparked a battle for the English throne.

Prior to the death Edward the Confessor, King of the English on January 5, 1066, he named as his successor Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex. That is the general consensus from historians based on contemporary historical sources.

Earl Godwinson’s claim to the English Throne did raise some issues because there were five other men who believed they held the lawful right to the throne.

Today I will examine who these men were that believed that their claim to the English Throne was the superior and rightful claim.

1. Harold Godwinson (c. 1022 — October 14, 1066)

Harold Godwinson was a member of Godwin family founded by Wulfnoth Cild (died c. 1014) who was a South Saxon thane who is regarded by historians as the probable father of…

Edward the Confessor (c. 1003 – January 5, 1066) was one of the last Anglo-Saxon Kings of the English. Usually considered the last king of the House of Wessex, he ruled from 1042 to 1066.

Edward was the son of Æthelred the Unready and Emma of Normandy. He succeeded Denmark’s Cnut the Great’s son – and his own half-brother – Harthacnut.

Edward restored the rule of the House of Wessex after the period of Danish rule since Cnut conquered England in 1016. When Edward died in 1066, he was succeeded by Harold Godwinson, who was defeated and killed in the same year by the Normans under William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings. Edward’s young great-nephew Edgar the Ætheling of the House of Wessex was proclaimed King after the Battle of Hastings in 1066 but was never crowned and was peacefully deposed after about eight weeks.

Historians disagree about…