[sharkjacobs]

> In a way, the Tokugawa system was a success. Japan experienced near-total peace between 1600 and the late nineteenth century, a remarkable achievement for a premodern society and a dramatic contrast to Europe or China, where tens of millions of people died in wars.

> Tokugawa Edo stands as a monument to the power of rent-seekers, producing little and demanding immense resources as a condition of civil peace.

The two dominant political axes. Which of is more repellent to you: a rigid stable social system based around millions of rent seeking parasitic landlords, or frequent social upheaval and conflict and open warfare

[amunozo]

You can have Russia, a rigid stable social system based around millions of rent seeking parasitic landlords and frequent social upheaval and conflict and open warfare.

[c22]

I guess if I am one of the landlords, or if rents are very reasonable and competitive I prefer the former. However, if it becomes the case that I am having all of my productivity extracted by rent seekers and I no longer have agency over my own life then the benefits of stability get downgraded and I'm much more willing to roll the dice.

[xg15]

Ah, don't we love trolley problems. Because there are absolutely no other options...

[david_shi]

Perhaps Golden Ages are the rare and illusive times when a third way is possible.

[julianeon]

Warfare, or more plainly the deaths of many, seems like a pretty decisive tiebreaker: whatever the flip side of the option that involves the death of thousands is, I will choose that. Of course, without this example, most people would say something like the downside isn't that bad; this case study is instructive because it shows that yes, it is.

It's not a perspective we usually see: the nobility, not as a noble or morally elite class, but as a problem that a successful government can manage and minimize, without violence.