Wanting the minimum, because beyond that the government tends to cease to be in line with Catholic thought, is not to withdraw or be an isolationist. Living as a Catholic tends to make oneself enough of a target of the earthly city’s ire as it is, why ask for more?

What authorities, do you suppose, was St. Paul, the Roman citizen, talking about in the following passage?

Chapter 13
1 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.

2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.

3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.

4 For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.

5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.

6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.

7 Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law.

9 For Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet: and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10 The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law.

11 And that knowing the season; that it is now the hour for us to rise from sleep. For now our salvation is nearer than when we believed.

12 The night is passed, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armour of light.

13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day: not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy:

14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences.

I admire your prudence on the one hand, but I wonder if perhaps it does a disservice to faith in God’s providence through the “princes” and “ministers,” even pagan tyrants like Nero Caesar, whom He has appointed over us.

You wouldn’t lose support from me. I’m an originalist conservative: an anti-Federalist Jeffersonian. The Federal Government has no authority under the Constitution to dictate drug laws. Consequently, the law demands that the decision be left to the people of each individual state. If Indiana votes to have drug laws, so be it. If California votes not to, then so be that. The people in their states were intended to be sovereign in this country, not the Grand Poobah in Washington.

When supping with the secularists, it’s advisable to use a very long spoon. Snuggling up close and pretending they’re not what they are is foolish. Thus it is one thing to want a Catholic State to rule strictly, and very much another to want the secularists to do the same.

This whole episode, I should add, underscores the inanity of federal assets being utilized to do (and in a great number of cases simply “adopt”) what local and state assets are capable of doing. We tolerate it because of the satisfaction of seeing serious violent felons receive long sentences in federal prison, of which they will serve a minimum of 85%, but federal cases like this one are one of the worst expenditures I can think of. I’m sure I’d make a hero of myself to libertarians and anarchists everywhere if I campaigned on a platform of eliminating the federal war on drugs and the BATF, DEA, etc., but I’d quickly lose it all by reminding them that this would be to the benefit of states’ and municipalities’ efforts (or lack thereof) in that regard.

This brings up a fundamental point, at long last, and I’m glad Bill posted this and that you all seem so interested in it.

There is a valid, and Scripturally sanctioned role for civil authorities to legislate against immoral actions. LTG has often sounded lately as if he disputes this. This trip into anarchy-land has reaffirmed my anti-libertarian commitment, and why I still find utility in adhering to a label like “conservative.”

I would not be at liberty to simply refuse a case I was given as a Deputy Attorney General. However, if I truly disagreed with a case, say I was asked to defend the State’s current position with regard to abortion (that it’s legal and that its not a crime to kill fetuses), I could ask to be taken off the case. My supervisor might decide to assign it to another lawyer or he might decide that I have to continue on the case. In that latter case, I would be forced to choose to resign or compromise my principles.

With Mike’s example I could draw a line in the sand, but it would be pointless. While I disagree with the current jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause, it is not morally repugnant and I could make a good argument based on the current state of the law. The difference is whether prosecuting a case would be harmful to my soul. Prosecuting a Commerce Clause case would not be harmful to my soul, it may be harmful to the United States and to Indiana, but it is not morally repugnant in the way that an abortion case would be. That is the line for me. I would argue Mike’s position, but it doesn’t say anything morally.

While the paleo-libertarians may promote that the choice is either tyranny or anarchy, that is certainly not my position.

In fact it’s the anarchy we live in that I detest, where men are not ruled and ordered to a true common good, but where men order themselves in the wasteland which pretends to be society.