I feel that party whips, while not an unconstitutional part of politics, are a surely immoral part. Unfortunately, they are a major part of modern party politics, as the purpose of the whip is to ensure that members of the party who sit in a parliament vote on issues as directed by the party leadership.

Personally, I find party politics to be a horrible and undemocratic way of doing things. I'm not sure if forced independence of members would be all that much better with the large, federalist systems currently in use by the western world. Then again, I'm not much of a supporter of strong federalism, either. I'd much prefer to see the supremacy of local councils of residents and businesses, who would elect from their own number representatives to higher-level bodies who would have control only on whatever issues are delegated by the lower bodies.

While federalism made sense in the days of poor communications and transport of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the rise of technology since the mid-twentieth century has given us the opportunity to build working governments of the local model. (The lack of a good word to oppose federalism has stymied me here. Suggestions are welcome.)

Now some of my fair readers may know me as a self-declared libertarian. However, there's no single view of libertarianism; there are probably as many different views as there are libertarians, and perhaps more. One day, I'll probably write a nice big treatise of my various views; given that a friend and I are looking to organize an event for Canadian libertarians for 2009, that might be sooner rather than later. But it comes down to a few principles, of which the major one is:

The government shall not have the power to interfere in the activities of two or more consenting persons where said activities do not involve the welfare or well-being of the consenting persons.

The government has no place in our boardrooms, our bedrooms, or anywhere else where people agree to things that only affect them. Only when there is the possibility of harm to others (to their person, property, well-being, or welfare) should the government have any say or authority. I believe this allows for a continuation of various social programs for the less fortunate among us, but the elimination of laws created to enforce social structures, social morality, or anything else of the sort.