> 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

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.

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

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.