This article appeared in Reason magazine in 1998, author Walter Olson. Excerpt and url North is the son-in-law and devotee of Rousas Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism. And apparently North finds some way around stoning gays, and would only imprison them for life. Stoning is for blasphemy and such, my emphasis:

Invitation to a Stoning: Getting cozy with theocrats

...

Politically, Reconstructionists have been active both in the GOP and in the splinter U.S. Taxpayers Party; but their greater influence, as they themselves would doubtless agree, has been felt in the sphere of ideas, in helping change the terms of discourse on the traditionalist right. One of their effects has been to allow everyone else to feel moderate. To wit: Almost any anti-abortion stance seems nuanced when compared with Gary North's advocacy of public execution not just for women who undergo abortions but for those who advised them to do so. And with the Rushdoony faction proposing the actual judicial murder of gays, fewer blink at the position of a Gary Bauer or a Janet Folger, who support laws exposing them to mere imprisonment....

So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." And he may be right about that last point, you know.

On ultimate goals: "So let us be blunt about it," says Gary North. "We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html

Btw, Rockwell does not "let" Glenn post at his site. Glenn let's anyone reprint him, including Rockwell. That's up to Glenn, but I would not go even that far if it means being part of a collection that approvingly hosts the North archives.

Look, I understand the objection to the idea that there can be such a thing as a limited government. So did the Founders. It is the natural tendency of government to expand, and for politicians and judges to increase their power. The more laws -- and the more Byzantine they are -- the greater advantage to Big Corporations and the Trial Lawyers who can manipulate the system via lobbying, socio-political incestuous relationships, and various ways of well-concealed bribes and back-scratching.

But human beings will always form governments. Even Iceland eventually did. And frankly, the deposit of common law the U.S. inherited from Britain is a good thing, one we retained, and so is the court system, in principle.

If we cannot preserve reasonably limited government after the start we were given, it may be impossible. But there will always be government, and there ought to be. You are far more extreme in your libertarianism than I am, or the folks at Reason or Cato.

(And LMW: I have no objection to funding traffic lights, for god's sake.)

Govt monopoly on force is what we have in the U.S., except for the right to self-defense (and that the govt supervises and may make you prove it in court). I believe it should be that way, but that it also makes govt dangerous and is among the reasons it ought to be limited and we must be vigilant in how that force is authorized to be used.

A corporation doesn't storm into people's homes with para-military units known as SWAT teams to grab their bag of pot, and in the process often kill people and pets. Corporate actors who do use violence agasint people (other than by, say, rightfully "escorting" them from premises for trepass and the like), should be prosecuted.