Enough Already with the Experiments - Monarchy is the Best Form of Government

[Brenus]

I find very strange that Monarchy is look as the most stable system. If this assumption would be true, why some countries are Republics?

From History we know that Families Business is quite messy, but when it comes from Royalties it is really messy. Can I remind people that the 100 years war was a Family problem? The Uncle was denying his great nephew (the son on his niece, last daughter of his brother) his part of his Grand Father’s cake.

And I don’t want to go in the WW1… All Borgias, the lot.

The only use I see in Monarchy is to give some time entertainment to the crowd in having a red poker in err, well, or losing head on subject like high treason.

[Cute Wolf]

meh, everything will inevitably back into Oligarchy, unless there is a person with particularly strong charisma and power, so it can be a monarch.

Even democracy is nothing but mere illusion, that's the Iron Law of Oligarchy!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is assuming you consider it acceptable to be governed by lot, rather than by your will. It's awfully close to the reasoning behind the Patriot Act: if you don't have anything to hide, surely you wouldn't object to the complete lack of accountability and checks-and-balances with this power grab? Or: if you don't have any interest in child porn, why would you complain about the Great Australian Firewall despite it being both incompetent, subjective and ludicrous beyond belief?

Point is that these laws might not affect you even though they should be gotten rid of. Just like monarchies.

That's not really a fair comparison, as the Patriot act actually invades your life, laws of succession just stop you wearing a heavy crown on your head.

[HoreTore]

Yes, and the buggers have even stopped wearing that heavy crown!

Probably because their craniums are too soft now after centuries of inbreeding.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I find very strange that Monarchy is look as the most stable system. If this assumption would be true, why some countries are Republics?

From History we know that Families Business is quite messy, but when it comes from Royalties it is really messy. Can I remind people that the 100 years war was a Family problem? The Uncle was denying his great nephew (the son on his niece, last daughter of his brother) his part of his Grand Father’s cake.

And I don’t want to go in the WW1… All Borgias, the lot.

The only use I see in Monarchy is to give some time entertainment to the crowd in having a red poker in err, well, or losing head on subject like high treason.

This is all wrong Brenus. We need a monarchy because we mustn't deny the slave mass their pleasures. You see, any slave that picks the side of his whipwielding massa can pretend he is not a slave, but that he belongs to the moral class of massa, which rubs off on him. If he is truly ambitious, he will himself whip his son into submission to massa and offer his daughter for his pleasure. That'll show the other slaves he is a man of tradition, honour and loyalty.

I think it is easier then ever to topple the monarchy at present; and that it should become even easier as time passes - for various reasons (some local). More public awareness on the topic, and the balance might be tipped.

You mean that persistent mockery by free peoples is making you subjects uncomfortable?

I wouldn't worry about it. It is only the 21st century. Why would you possibly want to elect your own head of state? What could be more fulfilling to a man of education like yourself than to know you will always be governed by a Paris Hilton, whom you can neither elect nor hold accountable?

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's not really a fair comparison, as the Patriot act actually invades your life, laws of succession just stop you wearing a heavy crown on your head.

If monarchy was all about wearing ridiculous headwear my constitution would look rather different. They're not accountable, and they do wield power which I much rather see in the hands of the electorate/parliament

[Cute Wolf]

If the time machine is invented, we should try to abduct Thomas Jefferson, Washington, etc and bring them directly to King George.

No more republicanism

[Viking]

"Terribly wrong"?

Why?

Why is to wrong to harm people for no good reason? Why is injustice wrong? It is for me a moral that does not spring out from consequences, but rather a moral wrong in itself.

Constitutional monarchs are not wholly toothless but they can only really cause deadlock, not tyranny - so they represent no more danger to a nation than an elected president. Don't forget, most current tyrannies (Zimbabwe for example) are ruled by men initially elected into office.

Presidents will never achieve the same weight that a royal family will. Power lies in tradition related to persons and their blood. The PM is a nobody, he has his position on the mercy of the voters and his political partners - a very significant weakness, that I dear say is a symptom of a well-functioning democracy; this smaller focus on individuals.

Any person with powers represents a potential hazard, but if the democracy functions well - then the threat represented by a president is significantly lower as his position is not tied to his name in the same way that the position of a monarch is. In a future crisis, it would be easier for a monarch to put himself at thee helm, as he is a constant - 'always' been there and will 'always' be there, regardless. In a well-functioning democracy, a president would just have been one of many people appearing as adults, striving for the position.

It seems to me that your main objection is an instinctive discomfort with someone holding a heriditory position - that's not necessarily wrong but I challenge you to demonstrate that Norway would be better governed as a Republic than a Monarchy. Consider, a lot of the most politically stable places in Europe, with the happiest populations, are monarchies.

That's still more of a complaint than a reason. If the system works and you are well governed why make material changes?

It doesn't work, you see; the monarch is a bug in the system - just like any dictator would be. We make sacrifices to get the moral aspects of things right (though I don't think we are dealing with any major sacrifices here).

[Furunculus]

all the wonderful theory-crafting and snide parody-making does nothing to answer the question posed below:

All I will note is that in the case of Britain the constitutional monarchy has served the country very, very well, and that no-one has ever presented any substantial and unequivocal evidence that a change to a republic would provide a net-benefit to the sum of British governance.

Therefore, in the case of Britain, I do not support any move away from the system we already employ.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why is to wrong to harm people for no good reason? Why is injustice wrong? It is for me a moral that does not spring out from consequences, but rather a moral wrong in itself.

I don't know, why is it? The modern answer is a utilitarian one, we do not allow people harm others because in that sort of society everyone is at risk, and we try to reduce injustice because it benefits social cohesion. The historically acceptable answer is that we are all children of God and therefore all entitled to fair treatment as his children and equal dignity as brothers and sisters who procede from the same Father.

There is not, nor has their ever been, a purely secular moral argument - the closest are the Deistic arguments.

Monarchies appear to benefit the societies that have them, even in the Middle East the monarchies are at least marginally better than the oligarchies, Tyrannies and Dictatorships.

Presidents will never achieve the same weight that a royal family will. Power lies in tradition related to persons and their blood. The PM is a nobody, he has his position on the mercy of the voters and his political partners - a very significant weakness, that I dear say is a symptom of a well-functioning democracy; this smaller focus on individuals.

Your idea of a "fell functioning" democracy is a Constitutional Monarchy where the focus of pomp and ceremony is on the Monarch - take a look at Italy, France or Israel, or Greece or the USA for that matter. Without a monarch you have a vacume in the public imagination - and it is filled. Take a look at the cults that grew up around Bush after September 11th!

Any person with powers represents a potential hazard, but if the democracy functions well - then the threat represented by a president is significantly lower as his position is not tied to his name in the same way that the position of a monarch is. In a future crisis, it would be easier for a monarch to put himself at thee helm, as he is a constant - 'always' been there and will 'always' be there, regardless. In a well-functioning democracy, a president would just have been one of many people appearing as adults, striving for the position.

Except monarchs are usually raised not to be like that, Presidents/Prime Ministers have to work for their position and the fragility of that position makes it more likely they will cheat to stay their. I don't want anyone "striving" to rule me, I'd rather have an apathetic ruler with good ministers. For illustration see Russia and Italy, compare with Spain and the UK.

It doesn't work, you see; the monarch is a bug in the system - just like any dictator would be. We make sacrifices to get the moral aspects of things right (though I don't think we are dealing with any major sacrifices here).

No, it works, it just doesn't sit comfortably with your idea of democracy. Without a King you might get Berlusconi, or worse Putin. Imagine if Tony Blair had been able to become "president", how much quicker would the UK have gone to War - and would there have been an investigation afterwards?

[Viking]

I don't know, why is it? The modern answer is a utilitarian one, we do not allow people harm others because in that sort of society everyone is at risk, and we try to reduce injustice because it benefits social cohesion. The historically acceptable answer is that we are all children of God and therefore all entitled to fair treatment as his children and equal dignity as brothers and sisters who procede from the same Father.

That is though to dodge the question. You will need to make a circular argument at some point, argumenting like you do, because moral needs to start somewhere - a few things are the building blocks from whom every other moral conclusion must come from. If I say something is wrong, then it simply is. What is wrong and what is right varies from culture to culture. If I, on the other hand, claimed that it was wrong because it collided with some already established moral idea, then I would naturally have to argue my case.

There is not, nor has their ever been, a purely secular moral argument - the closest are the Deistic arguments.

Yet any religious argument starts with a secular one:

Conclusion: a god does exist
Question: is what this god says is right and wrong, actually what is right and wrong?

That a god can be a source for moral is not at all self-evident. Maybe it is the righteous people that go to hell, that is the price for being righteous - whereas those who take the easy path and spend the eternity in paradise are the morally corrupt people.

Your idea of a "fell functioning" democracy is a Constitutional Monarchy where the focus of pomp and ceremony is on the Monarch - take a look at Italy, France or Israel, or Greece or the USA for that matter. Without a monarch you have a vacume in the public imagination - and it is filled. Take a look at the cults that grew up around Bush after September 11th!

Who is the president of Germany? I have really no idea. Berlusconi is the PM, not the president.

Except monarchs are usually raised not to be like that, Presidents/Prime Ministers have to work for their position and the fragility of that position makes it more likely they will chea to stay their.

That's what we have the rest of the system for. You need to demonstrate how one probability is bigger than the other.

Neither PMs nor presidents are raised to be dictators either, so your point is moot. Monarchs, on the other hand, are raised to be at the top of society.

I don't want anyone "striving" to rule me, I'd rather have an apathetic ruler with good ministers. For illustration see Russia and Italy, compare with Spain and the UK.

What is your beef with countries like Finland or Iceland? Germany? You ought to be careful when drawing conclusions on an entire range of ways to have a country ruled, from individual countries. Compare Finland and Saudi Arabia instead and see what you get. QED!

I do not want anyone to rule me at all - monarchs and presidents alike - but alas, that seems unrealistic.

No, it works, it just doesn't sit comfortably with your idea of democracy. Without a King you might get Berlusconi, or worse Putin. Imagine if Tony Blair had been able to become "president", how much quicker would the UK have gone to War - and would there have been an investigation afterwards?

What works and what does not is a matter of definition. We could pick 100 random and innoccent inhabitants and subject them to torture and maiming in order to make the general populatoin considerably happier. Some would say that it works, others would say that it doesn't.

The president that I want is a toothless and ceremonial one - someone whose name is unknown to large portions of the society, simply because he is someone of little importance.

[Hax]

No more republicanism

No? Really?

[Cute Wolf]

No? Really?

Ahh, why not the very same, but just older Aristocratic Republic of SPQR?

I used republicanism in sense of universal democracy, my bad :P

[Hax]

I used republicanism in sense of universal democracy, my bad :P

Yeah, that glorious universal democracy for which the Americans died. That glorious democracy that granted suffrage to everyone, regardless of sex or skin colour.

Oh wait, no, I don't think so. Might be wrong. Hell, even a free black was subhuman to the colonists. Well, not to the French government in Louisiana. Oh well.

[Cute Wolf]

Yeah, that glorious universal democracy for which the Americans died. That glorious democracy that granted suffrage to everyone, regardless of sex or skin colour.

Oh wait, no, I don't think so. Might be wrong. Hell, even a free black was subhuman to the colonists. Well, not to the French government in Louisiana. Oh well.

give me a time machine and I'll try my best to save Louis XVI from guillotine
maybe I can secure a deal with him to make me a duke or somewhat

[Brenus]

“give me a time machine and I'll try my best to save Louis XVI from guillotine”:
Kill his brother as he voted the Death Penalty of his brother, and the sentence was won by one voice…
You have to LOVE monarchy…

[Skullheadhq]

No? Really?

Suddenly.... a stadholder appears. The only real republic here was the Batavian Republic which destroyed dutch culture and tradition and exchanged it for french freedom nonsense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is though to dodge the question. You will need to make a circular argument at some point, argumenting like you do, because moral needs to start somewhere - a few things are the building blocks from whom every other moral conclusion must come from. If I say something is wrong, then it simply is. What is wrong and what is right varies from culture to culture. If I, on the other hand, claimed that it was wrong because it collided with some already established moral idea, then I would naturally have to argue my case.

For a religious person morality starts from the beginning of the universe, put there by God. For religious people morals are also universally applicable, they do not vary by time and place. Your "if I say something is wrong, then it simply is" statement is a hangover from religious thinking, as evidenced by the moral relativism in the next sentence! The two viewpoints are not compatable, either you hold your moral views because they have utility, or morality is axiomatic.

Yet any religious argument starts with a secular one:

Conclusion: a god does exist
Question: is what this god says is right and wrong, actually what is right and wrong?

That a god can be a source for moral is not at all self-evident. Maybe it is the righteous people that go to hell, that is the price for being righteous - whereas those who take the easy path and spend the eternity in paradise are the morally corrupt people.

Actually, it is self evident. A God who creates the universe gets to ordain whatever laws he likes, and that is the root of your morality - an evil God creating the universe would be a God who created us to see him as "evil" by giving us a diametrically oppossed viewpoint to his own.

Who is the president of Germany? I have really no idea. Berlusconi is the PM, not the president.

The president that I want is a toothless and ceremonial one - someone whose name is unknown to large portions of the society, simply because he is someone of little importance.

This is the core of my point. No one knows who the titular leader of Germany is, because it isn't the Kaisar, as a result the power vacume is filled by the Chancellor one rung down - who becomes more important by default. Same thing in Italy, you can't have a weak President and the sort of parliamentary democracy a monarchy usually enjoys in the West today.

[Hax]

destroyed dutch culture and tradition

Basically, nothing of value was lost.

[Strike For The South]

Basically, nothing of value was lost.

Does no one think of the clogs?

[Hax]

Does no one think of the clogs?

My original point remains.

[Tellos Athenaios]

To be fair clogs have their uses and are surprisingly comfortable.

[Viking]

For a religious person morality starts from the beginning of the universe, put there by God. For religious people morals are also universally applicable, they do not vary by time and place. Your "if I say something is wrong, then it simply is" statement is a hangover from religious thinking, as evidenced by the moral relativism in the next sentence! The two viewpoints are not compatable, either you hold your moral views because they have utility, or morality is axiomatic.

It would be a remnant of traditional religous morals, perhaps, if I thought that right and wrong were objective - but I do not. I do not expect morals to be proven; the mere thought of that is to me utterly absurd (though, of course, through reason one could come from some moral principles to others, and 'prove' that they are linked).

When I say that what is wrong and what is right varies from culture to culture, I do not mean what is right and wrong the way I see it - I do not practice moral relativity. It is a mere observation that may aid my statement.

Actually, it is self evident. A God who creates the universe gets to ordain whatever laws he likes, and that is the root of your morality - an evil God creating the universe would be a God who created us to see him as "evil" by giving us a diametrically oppossed viewpoint to his own.

No, it isn't. There is nothing to say that our universe is the only one. This god might be the only one truly relevant to the universe, since he created it - but he could be a part of something greater, for instance a hierarchy. This is where you will have to use secular logic. If you cannot trust the god, then any religious argument will fall apart.

Same thing in Italy, you can't have a weak President and the sort of parliamentary democracy a monarchy usually enjoys in the West today.

And why would that be?

[gaelic cowboy]

Same thing in Italy, you can't have a weak President and the sort of parliamentary democracy a monarchy usually enjoys in the West today.

Yes you can

having a weak ceremonial president is the same as having a weak ceremonial Monarch which is what UK, Germany and Italy plus a lot of others have in common

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would be a remnant of traditional religous morals, perhaps, if I thought that right and wrong were objective - but I do not. I do not expect morals to be proven; the mere thought of that is to me utterly absurd (though, of course, through reason one could come from some moral principles to others, and 'prove' that they are linked).

When I say that what is wrong and what is right varies from culture to culture, I do not mean what is right and wrong the way I see it - I do not practice moral relativity. It is a mere observation that may aid my statement.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. If morals are not objectively "true" then they can't be right or wrong in ameaningful sense, merel "useful" or not. Also, if morals are not objective then they are clearly subjective and therefore by definition entirely personal.

No, it isn't. There is nothing to say that our universe is the only one. This god might be the only one truly relevant to the universe, since he created it - but he could be a part of something greater, for instance a hierarchy. This is where you will have to use secular logic. If you cannot trust the god, then any religious argument will fall apart.

Occam's Razor says that in the absense of any other data we should work with what we have. We have one universe to work with, postulating others is merely wild speculation, we have no indication one way or the other, at all.

And why would that be?

Stumps me. It's an observation.

[Viking]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. If morals are not objectively "true" then they can't be right or wrong in ameaningful sense, merel "useful" or not. Also, if morals are not objective then they are clearly subjective and therefore by definition entirely personal.

Because you define what's meaningful?

Subjective morals do not equal personal morals. If objective morals did exist, they could be personal; but they did not have to be right - they could be objectively irrelevant or objectively wrong.. Subjective vs. objective is characterising morals and moral judgements as a whole.

The right and wrong of subjective morals is meaningful because it gives the sort of guidance that morals is supposed to give. Even if objective morals did exist, one would never manage to agree on how they should be practised and what to do when they seemingly contradict - meaning that the notion of right and wrong has big problems right from the start. If one cannot agree universally on what is right and wrong, then the fact that morals were objective would be nothing but a fun fact. No human could possibly know whether or not it was acting according to the right set of morals.

Occam's Razor says that in the absense of any other data we should work with what we have. We have one universe to work with, postulating others is merely wild speculation, we have no indication one way or the other, at all.

And what we have is uncertainty, so that is what we have to work with. Chosing to ignore this uncertainty may only ever be done through secular logic. Any non-secular logic depends on secular logic in this fashion - it relies on the fact that you can trust yourself and your observations. Descartes tried to save himself from this question, but his attempt fails ("I think, therefore I am" - but of course, Descartes could be a long chain of different identities highly similar. But I digress.).

Yes, it is "wild" speculations. Yet, what I talk about could be true regarldess of how "wild" people of this time would consider it. So, if one is actually to get some sense of overview on things, one must account for all possibilties. These possibilites could have a real impact on daily life, both directly and indirectly - only assessing them may tell. The indirect impact in this case, is to weaken the idea of religious logic as somehow independent of secular logic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because you define what's meaningful?

Subjective morals do not equal personal morals. If objective morals did exist, they could be personal; but they did not have to be right - they could be objectively irrelevant or objectively wrong.. Subjective vs. objective is characterising morals and moral judgements as a whole.

The right and wrong of subjective morals is meaningful because it gives the sort of guidance that morals is supposed to give. Even if objective morals did exist, one would never manage to agree on how they should be practised and what to do when they seemingly contradict - meaning that the notion of right and wrong has big problems right from the start. If one cannot agree universally on what is right and wrong, then the fact that morals were objective would be nothing but a fun fact. No human could possibly know whether or not it was acting according to the right set of morals.

Nope, still not getting it.

Objective: Something which is not dependant on the perspective of the subject (me) and therefore is always "true". I shall not consider "false" statements becase they are merely the antithesis of true ones.

Subjective: Something which is so from the subjective's perspective but not universally so, and therfore not actually "true" but merely appears to be so/approximates truth.

So, my understandin of morality is the division between right and wrong, which is universally applicable in every instance and is built into the fabric of the universe, it is not objective. Ergo, what is Right or True in one instance is also Right or True in every other instance without excpetion.

What you are talking about is not morality, but subjective utility, this is basically Sophistry. The idea is that "these morals are benificial for this society, therefore they are 'good'". The problem with that model is that one can only interrogate a society on its own terms, and the question of whether the society itself is bad never comes up. This is where multiculturalism has run aground, trying to give equal weight to every cultural view and then just unravelling in a mess.

None of this is morality.

And what we have is uncertainty, so that is what we have to work with. Chosing to ignore this uncertainty may only ever be done through secular logic. Any non-secular logic depends on secular logic in this fashion - it relies on the fact that you can trust yourself and your observations. Descartes tried to save himself from this question, but his attempt fails ("I think, therefore I am" - but of course, Descartes could be a long chain of different identities highly similar. But I digress.).

Yes, it is "wild" speculations. Yet, what I talk about could be true regarldess of how "wild" people of this time would consider it. So, if one is actually to get some sense of overview on things, one must account for all possibilties. These possibilites could have a real impact on daily life, both directly and indirectly - only assessing them may tell. The indirect impact in this case, is to weaken the idea of religious logic as somehow independent of secular logic.

I recently read in the Guardian an article that argued that this universe was probably created to be ergonomic for the creation of life by people in another universe, and that this explained the habitablity of our universe. Further, it was argued that this was more likely than a divine creator because once a sentient lifeform existed in one universe it would create other habitable universes, and then others would be created...... etc.

This ignored three points.

1. That we might be the "first" universe.

2. That this still doesn't explain the existence of a first universe, even if it isn't us.

3. That this whole speculation is based on something we think we "might" be able to do.

In other words, it's about as likely, if not less so, than a Divine Creator.

Wild speculation based on that sort of "evidence" is significantly beyond the realms of all but the wackiest theology.

So, as I said, we have one universe to work with, making wild suppositions about other universes that may or may not exist, and which we will never visit, is just an exercise in intellectual vanity. It is considerably less useful in my view than the discussion we are having now.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Morals depend heavily on culture, and cultures often have conflicting views of what is immoral. To me that alone suggests there is no such thing as an objective morality which is somehow inherent in the universe.

Anyway, according to physics what we will very probably end up with after we've all been incinerated by the Sun or frozen to death for lack of light if we keep managing to avoid incineration is the utter destruction of the universe into loose photons so far apart from each other that there's no putting them back together.

[Viking]

Nope, still not getting it.

Objective: Something which is not dependant on the perspective of the subject (me) and therefore is always "true". I shall not consider "false" statements becase they are merely the antithesis of true ones.

Subjective: Something which is so from the subjective's perspective but not universally so, and therfore not actually "true" but merely appears to be so/approximates truth.

So, my understandin of morality is the division between right and wrong, which is universally applicable in every instance and is built into the fabric of the universe, it is not objective. Ergo, what is Right or True in one instance is also Right or True in every other instance without excpetion.

What you are talking about is not morality, but subjective utility, this is basically Sophistry. The idea is that "these morals are benificial for this society, therefore they are 'good'". The problem with that model is that one can only interrogate a society on its own terms, and the question of whether the society itself is bad never comes up. This is where multiculturalism has run aground, trying to give equal weight to every cultural view and then just unravelling in a mess.

None of this is morality.

Non. I am not saying that every moral view is equally correct - what I am saying is that the whole notion of 'correct morals' is flawed; in the objective sense, that is.

I am not interested in utility at all. What is wrong and what is right in my view, does not depend on the society. I have an absolute view of morality, morality that is not objective. It makes no more sense to talk about objective morals than an objective taste in foods (what tastes 'good' and what tastes 'bad').

The difference between food and morals should be obvious: taste in foods is foremost a private matter whereas morals mainly involve other people. While taste may largely be genetically coded, morals are to a less extent and may thus be debated and/or shared.

You personally may find such a view on morals problematic, but it still represents morality. A subjective perception may be shared by everyone on the planet, but it is still not objective. This means that subjective morals may be applied universally and with consistency.

Many people might agree that respect for the individ is important, and so do I - but as with any other moral idea, I consider it to be subjective. Subjective, yet something for every society.

I recently read in the Guardian an article that argued that this universe was probably created to be ergonomic for the creation of life by people in another universe, and that this explained the habitablity of our universe. Further, it was argued that this was more likely than a divine creator because once a sentient lifeform existed in one universe it would create other habitable universes, and then others would be created...... etc.

This ignored three points.

1. That we might be the "first" universe.

2. That this still doesn't explain the existence of a first universe, even if it isn't us.

3. That this whole speculation is based on something we think we "might" be able to do.

In other words, it's about as likely, if not less so, than a Divine Creator.

Wild speculation based on that sort of "evidence" is significantly beyond the realms of all but the wackiest theology.

So, as I said, we have one universe to work with, making wild suppositions about other universes that may or may not exist, and which we will never visit, is just an exercise in intellectual vanity. It is considerably less useful in my view than the discussion we are having now.

Well, I do not intend to debate this topic as there is not much to add to it. The reason why I brought it up is indeed to demonstrate that any chain of arguments must start with secular logic. Any religious logic is a consequence of a secular one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Morals depend heavily on culture, and cultures often have conflicting views of what is immoral. To me that alone suggests there is no such thing as an objective morality which is somehow inherent in the universe.

See, I just interpret that as some cultures being less moral.

All of this feeds back into the original debate, because as far as I can see the only objection to monarchy in Norway is a personal affective one, not a moral or logical one. Logically the Norwegian system works, and it is a truism that whenever you try to improve on something that works you break it.