pconroy thinks I am indeed being dense: “as surely you know where the reformation started and where its principal exponents came from”

I’m well aware of how the Reformation worked and where the hot spots were. But that’s not the claim that I was responding to. I was responding to your claim that “This vast area is predominantly Protestant today as a result.” I don’t think the data bears that out.

While we’re on the topic, though, I think you are in fact mistaken to claim that “they [are] all in the core of the Celtic Christian sphere”. Most of them are actually on the periphery: in Moravia, Wittenberg, and Switzerland, with the south of France coming on strong later. The Protestant countries in the “core” were either notably moderate in their ardor for Reform (England) or else following in the wake of Switzerland and France (Scotland, the Netherlands).

And yes, nearly all the Protestant countries in Europe are on your list. But that shouldn’t be surprising. Protestantism was a phenomenon within the Western Church, and you named nearly every country in Western and central Europe. If you go much further east from the sphere you set out, you are in the Eastern Church’s sphere of influence, and if you go much further west, you fall in the Atlantic Ocean.

Excluding some tiny principalities, the only Western Church countries you missed were Portugal, Spain, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Norway, and Sweden. And of those 6, two are overwhelmingly Protestant as well.

The culprit is this part of the inline stylesheet in your template:

description {

margin: 7em 7em; max-width:400px; font-size:120%; line-height:1.8 em; letter-spacing:.1em; color:#789; }

You want to go to your template, find this section in the <style>…</style> structure up at the head of the template, and change the first of the two measures under the “margin:” property (the size of the top and bottom margins) to something smaller. E.G.:

description {

margin: 2em 7em; max-width:400px; font-size:120%; line-height:1.8 em; letter-spacing:.1em; color:#789; }

At least, I think that should do it. Does that work?

“Celtic Christianity spread from Ireland”

91.6% Catholic (not counting Ulster)

“to, Britain,”

High Church Protestant with a substantial Catholic minority (their Census doesn’t seem to take denominational figures for England and Wales)

“Iceland,”

87.1% Evangelical Lutheran

“North and Central France,”

83%-88% Catholic

“Belgium,”

75% Catholic

“Holland,”

31% Catholic, 21% Protestant, 40% unaffiliated. Mostly Reformed Protestant in the past.

“Germany,”

34% Protestant (mostly Lutheran), 34% Roman Catholic

“Southern Denmark,”

95% Evangelical Lutheran

“Czech Republic,”

39.2% Catholic, 4.6% Protestant, 39.8% atheist

“Switzerland,”

The home of Geneva, yes, but 46.1% Catholic, 40% Protestant

“Northern Italy”

Predominantly Roman Catholic (they don’t seem to keep figures)

“and Slovenia.”

70.8% Roman Catholic (2% Uniate)

Forgive me if I’m being dense, but I don’t see any overwhelming trend towards predominant Protestantism here. Of course, a large number of the countries that did turn out to be majority Protestant are in this sphere; but so, too, are a large number of the countries that turned out to be majority Catholic. (If you go much further east, you end up in the Byzantine and Turkish sphere of influence; if you go much further west, you fall into the ocean.)

gc: “if they enter the United States illegally they ARE trespassing on the property of US citizens”

What property are they trespassing on? If I own a plot of land adjacent to the border and invite immigrants to cross it (for a small fee) to safely enter the United States, do you claim that the government still has a right to attack them as “trespassers”? Against whom? Clearly not against me, since I invited them. Against “property collectively owned by the citizens of the United States”? Where did they cross onto that? At the border? The border is a dimensionless line, not a plot of land that anyone can own, either individually or collectively.

gc: “What don’t you get? Whether the land adjoining the border is privately or publicly owned, it is ILLEGAL for aliens to cross over without getting permission from the US government.”

I’m well aware of the state of immigration law. What we’re arguing about is whether or not it ought to be illegal. That is: whether or not the government has any right to attack people for trying to move across the border without showing their papers, whether or not they have trespassed on anyone’s land and whether or not they have endangered anyone’s person or property. I emphasize the “whether or not” because you continue to say things like this:

“Your use of the adjective “peaceful” is an inversion of reality. This flow of migrants destroys private property in their wake. They use the land as a toilet. They hijack cars and kill cattle. [… home intrusion, robbery, rape, murder, etc. …] You are totally out of touch with the reality of the situation – it is NOT a “peaceful” migration and I’d appreciate it if you stop using that misleading adjective.”

Let’s try this once again.

1. You know perfectly well that a substantial number of the abuses that you cite are the direct result of immigration prohibition. People don’t sneak through ranches or fear to stop at a restaurant to go to the bathroom or cut fences or hire violent and dangerous coyotes to smuggle them through the desert if there are clean, safe highways into metropolitan areas that they can take instead. They don’t do these things because they are louts; they do them because they have to sneak around to avoid men with guns and clubs who will attack them if they find them. You could stop the overwhelming majority of these problems tomorrow by abolishing immigration restrictions.

2. You know this perfectly well, but you don’t care—because what you are defending is a law that uses force to stop immigrants whether or not they have done any of these things. You propose to use violence against undocumented immigrants whether they are peaceful or violent, whether they commit trespassing or not, whether or not they defecate on anyone’s lawn, whether or not they endanger anyone’s life, health, or property. There are already laws on the books, completely independent of immigration policy, against trespassing, vandalism, theft, robbery, carjacking, rape, murder, et cetera. Laws that we are not arguing about. It’s the case of peaceful immigrants that we disagree over. That is why I keep using that adjective, and that is why your continued sensationalist red herrings are wearing more and more thin every time you trot them out.

gc: “Zizka, I think it would be a curious definition of Western Civilization indeed if it included Islam. Mesopotamia, sure, but not Mohammed.”

On what principled grounds would you include pre-Muslim Mesopotamian civilization in the cluster concept, but not Muslim civilization—at least as it reached Mesopotamia (let alone Spain and Eastern Europe)?

Razib: “it’s easily defensible if you think about it on a world-historical scale. but the definition i’m using implicitly is constrained to western europe (orthodox-byzantine europe is left out as well).”

It seems like the obvious response here is going to be the seven centuries of Muslim Spain… if Cordoba’s not in Western Europe, where is it?

Tom: “That is why he cannot not see the parallel between a house-family, and country-citizens.”

Tom, do you genuinely think that the relationship between parent and child is an appropriate model for the relationship between the State and its subjects? Some of us are wary of the historical tropes of absolute monarchy. Some of us also prefer to be treated as adults.

That said, let’s grant your analogy for a moment. What kind of parent is the government? Does your father take half of the money you earn at your job and use it for his own purposes? Does he follow you back to your house and beat you up if you smoke dope or invite the wrong people to stay with you?

“He looks at the USA as an artifical institution that only gets in the way of his plans for the world – whatever they may be.”

You seem to be confused. I don’t have a plan for the world. I have a plan for the peaceful enjoyment of my own property and I object to the government using violence to interfere with it. I also object to the government (or anyone else) using violence to interfere with other people’s plans for the peaceful enjoyment of their own property. I don’t have any intentions with setting their plans myself.

This is one of the many things that distinguishes me from, say, a Maoist. It’s also one of the many things that distinguishes me from you: you have a plan for a particular sort of demographics (economic? ethnic?) in the United States and feel free to endorse attacks on other people peacefully enjoying the use of their own property in order to implement that plan. It is that to which I object.

“Rad Geek sees the government for as something that solely applies force.”

How do do you think the government enforces its edicts? Magic wands are in short supply.

“By this he implies, and wants us to beleive, that applying force is wrong and unnecessary.”

This is a grave misunderstanding. I don’t object to using force. What I object to is initiating force. Think of it this way: making a law means, ultimately, using violence if necessary to enforce the provisions of the law. Laws are justified when using violence is justified (e.g., laws to prevent pillage, rape, murder, etc.). They are not justified when using violence is not justified (i.e., forcing someone to give a job to disadvantaged minorities, forcing someone to give a job to privileged majorities, forcing someone not to smoke dope, etc.).

“What he does not mention is that he has no real solutions.”

Solutions for what? I’m not interested in solving social problems by attacking people. My suggestion is to stop trying. If you want to talk about nonviolent means of building a healthy, vigorous, and prosperous community, let’s talk.

“His solutions are impractical.”

Do you think that the current immigration prohibition is “practical”? What practical ends is it achieving?

“This is what communists did in Eastern Europe.”

I am not the one who advocates attacking immigrants to enforce a vision for America. You are.

Me (2004-11-18): “The issue is whether or not it’s morally acceptable to shoot innocent people for crossing borders in order to do a job. If it’s is, then good God, why? If it isn’t, then you are better off living with whatever consequences come, your vision for America notwithstanding.”

gc (2004-11-18): ‘I should also note that this border crossing is hardly the “innocent” activity you imagine. Here’s a mirror of the recent TIME magazine article, “Who Left the Door Open?”.

[news account of immigrants trespassing, using property as latrines, cutting fences]

Hmmmm…doesn’t sound so “innocent” any more, does it? Would you like thousands of people per day walking over your lawn, defecating on your property, killing your animals, and cutting your fences?’

Me (2004-11-18): “But that, of course, is not the issue. As you well know, there are already laws against trespassing, destruction of property, grand larceny, etc. As you also well know, immigration restrictions are enforced against would-be immigrants whether or not they commit any of these crimes, because the purpose of immigration restrictions is to limit the volume of immigration. Simply demanding that the police enforce laws against littering, trespassing, theft, destruction of property, grand larceny, etc., would be enough for you if your only concern were with the fact that some immigrants happen to violate property rights in the course of making their way into the United States.

“You would also, of course, recognize and account for the fact that most of these crimes are committed precisely because the immigrants have to dodge armed men who are willing to kill them if necessary in order to stop them from living and working in the United States. If you eliminate those restrictions, you will also eliminate most of the reasons to sneak through, hide, consort with criminals, etc.

“If you want to have an intelligent discussion, I strongly suggest you stick to the point rather than introducing red herrings that have nothing to do with the enforcement of immigration law.”

Me (2004-11-26): “Do you think that if the government refuses to shoot someone for peacefully entering the country and working (for a private employer, not the government) for pay, that’s a hand-out akin to a parent providing dinner for a kid? If so, why?”

gc (2004-11-26): “First of all, that entry is NOT peaceful:

[blah blah blah same news account]

“So let’s omit the misleading adjective in the future, shall we? 3 million illegals per year come to more than 10000 per day, a veritable human wave of felony immigration violators, drug smugglers, and trespassers.”

gc, again, this is a red herring. Your proposal is to get men with guns and clubs and have them use violence against immigrants to keep them out whether or not they are trespassing and whether or not they have damaged anyone’s property. The reason I talk about peaceful immigrants is because the issue here is not trespassing law, it’s immigration law. I have no objections to using proportional force to prevent people from trespassing or vandalizing property. I do have objections to attacking people who are doing nothing other than traveling to get a job. Since that is where you and I disagree, that is what we are arguing over.

You don’t care whether the immigrants are damaging property or not—you will endorse attacking whether they are trespassing or going only where they have been invited. If your concern were only immigrants who were trespassing on private property, we wouldn’t be arguing. Please stop introducing red herrings and stay on the topic.

gc on why the government can shoot you in order to enforce your neighbors’ preferences about whether non-citizens stay at your house, but not whether citizens can: “If my child is performing badly in life, I have a responsibility to take care of him. I don’t have a responsibility to take care of someone else’s kid who comes barging into my house without my permission and sits down at my dining table with a chip on his shoulder, screaming at me for “racism” if I don’t give him dinner.”

gc, do you earnestly believe that the relationship between the State and its citizens (subjects?) is properly like that between a parent and a child? If so, why?

Do you think that if the government refuses to shoot someone for peacefully entering the country and working (for a private employer, not the government) for pay, that’s a hand-out akin to a parent providing dinner for a kid? If so, why?

gc: “Both the communist and the extremist libertarian assume that you can have equal affection (call it X) for all 6 billion other people. The libertarian sets X = 0, while the communist sets X = 1 (where X = 0 corresponds to no altruistic behavior whatsoever and X = 1 corresponds to the extent that you love your own child.)”

Do you earnestly believe that the way only way a person can or should show affection for someone is to steal other people’s money, or use violence to obstruct other people from getting a job, for that person’s benefit? If so, why?

Remember, this argument is not about “affection,” it’s about the use of force. I love my family and my friends and I have no trouble helping them. I do have a problem with attacking other people in order to do it.

… the corporate welfare budget is over $65,000,000,000.00 / year in direct subsidies and costs taxpayers somewhere on the order of $300,000,000,000.00 each and every year through the effects of programs such as agricultural price supports. Net tax recipients among the super-rich are clustered in heavily subsidized and cartelized industries such as agribusiness, fuel extraction, electricity generation and trading, some areas of timber, etc. This isn’t even counting entire industries whose entire business model is built around government-granted and government-enforced monopolies (the film industry, the music industry, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.).

Not all of the super-rich are net tax recipients, but not all very low-wage workers or indigents are net tax recipients either. You only asked where they were clustered.

gc on net tax recipients: “3 + 4 [gov’t employees and contractors] are getting paid to do a job by the government. This is very different than receiving an entitlement or a government service that they have not paid taxes for.”

gc, what portion of the federal and state bureaucracy do you earnestly believe performs a useful service for which people should be willing to pay them? If they created a Federal Department of Mud-Pies and employed indigent people making mud-pies all day for $20/hr, would you be willing to say anything like the following?

“They are receiving money from the government because they have paid the government/taxpayer in labor rather than in capital (i.e. taxes).”

If the “services” people are being paid for are useless, then I do not see how they are different in any relevant sense from straight-up welfare recipients—except insofar as the welfare recipients are more honest and more poorly paid. If the “services” are being paid at exorbitantly high rates because of political pull or government restriction of competition (as is often the case in government contracts), the surplus extracted is also different in no relevant sense from a welfare check, except again that it is more dishonest.

“Unless you believe the government should not fund any services, we can junk these two categories.”

Unless you believe that the government should fund every existing service at the level that it currently funds it, we cannot. Pretending that the expanse of useless government programs and services isn’t relevant to the size of government spending is an absolutely ludicrous move.

“Category 4 in particular usually doesn’t receive all their revenue from the government.”

Do you need to receive all your revenue from the government to be a net tax recipient? Why?

“5 have paid taxes their whole lives. Yes, they are net drains w.r.t. SS, and yes, I support privatizing SS, but they have not been net tax recipients their whole lives.”

So? You didn’t ask who has been a net tax recipient their whole lives. You asked who is a net tax recipient now. Social Security is far and away the largest single

“6 is laughable. The super rich are net tax recipients?? Ever look at the fraction of income taxes paid by the top 5% recently? It’s more than 50% of the nation’s total take.”

Come on, gc, you’re smarter than this. The amount that they pay out in income tax—let alone the percentage of aggregate income taxe receipts they pay, is irrelevant. What’s relevant is whether they receive more than they pay, or pay more than they receive. There are plenty of super-rich people who pay more than they receive in taxes. But there are also plenty who receive much more than they pay. This varies, in part, by the industries from which they make their money: the corporate welfare budget is over $65,000,000,000.00 / year in direct subsidies and costs taxpayers somewhere on the order of $300,000,000,0