Why does everyone think that having the iron throne empty or destroyed will make the peasants better off.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Fjodrik said:

I think Niall Ferguson has an elegant explanation:

 

I don't think much of ol' Niall generally.

That said, I'm a pretty big fan of North's and Weingast's paper. 

[Fjodrik]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think much of ol' Niall generally.

That said, I'm a pretty big fan of North's and Weingast's paper. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2122739?

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Fjodrik said:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2122739?

Thanks for the link.

That certainly is a classic in the state development literature. I'd recommend anyone that is interested in that sort of thing to read it.

[Fjodrik]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

That certainly is a classic in the state development literature. I'd recommend anyone that is interested in that sort of thing to read it.

I'm enjoying it right now. Embarrassed to say, I haven't read it  before.

[Winter prince]

3 hours ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Not only has there been zero set-up in either the books or the shows for the idea of replacing monarchy/feudalism with a representative democracy, it would probably work out really terribly with no theory or practice of democracy to rely on. Democracy existed for quite a while before anybody really came to "representative," and those early Greek democracies were quite a model for really awful government.

I have consistently referred to the Nights Watch using a democratic approach to selecting their lord commander so democracy has existed there. My theory only implies representative in name. Power still remains with noble houses the only difference is choosing their king/leader instead of it being by conquest or lineage.

Yes, they are lightyears away from Greek or Roman style of politics.

[no_one...]

I've  always thought it would end with a Magna Carta type stepping stone towards a division and limitation of powers.   It's a bit disturbing people actually think Facsism is a stepping stone towards a form of Democracy. 

[RhaenysBee]

Wow so much history. 

Absolutism was not in fact successful in most of mainland Europe, it was more often an obstacle than a catalyst of modernization and industrialization as its aim was to hold political power through centralization, which was a limitation on the free flow of economies. It also brought up age old religious differences in many countries as the absolutist monarch was of one religion while many powerful noble families that controlled sizable territories  and newly emerged social classes were of another. Absolutism in some cases also bankrupted itself through the lavish court its monarchs held, which took economic benefits away from the lower classes as well as made place for international conflicts between other absolutist monarchs. It is also important to note that modernization was always the result of a environmental and economic changes, the expansion of the world’s knowledge, and not brought about a form of political power. Economies changed and the political and social aspect adapted to that, not the other way around. But of course absolutism does deserve props for building infrastructure, bureaucracy, state structure, modern and disciplined military. And some absolutist rulers who identified the economic and social trends of their time correctly and were willing to play along instead of trying to hold them back, also made some great laws about freedom of religion, education, trade and customs, etc. ah, i’m sure this is a terribly amateur take on absolutism, do not take my word for any of this, it’s just what popped into my mind reading the discussion. 

Circling back on topic, I do agree that it’s a rather naive and unrealistic notion to expect Westeros to fall into a perfect liberal democracy after one person broke the wheel. Westeros as an economy and as a society will need transition time and for that time a parliamentary monarchy would serve them perfectly.

[no_one...]

2 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

Wow so much history. 

Absolutism was not in fact successful in most of mainland Europe, it was more often an obstacle than a catalyst of modernization and industrialization as its aim was to hold political power through centralization, which was a limitation on the free flow of economies. It also brought up age old religious differences in many countries as the absolutist monarch was of one religion while many powerful noble families that controlled sizable territories  and newly emerged social classes were of another. Absolutism in some cases also bankrupted itself through the lavish court its monarchs held, which took economic benefits away from the lower classes as well as made place for international conflicts between other absolutist monarchs. It is also important to note that modernization was always the result of a environmental and economic changes, the expansion of the world’s knowledge, and not brought about a form of political power. Economies changed and the political and social aspect adapted to that, not the other way around. But of course absolutism does deserve props for building infrastructure, bureaucracy, state structure, modern and disciplined military. And some absolutist rulers who identified the economic and social trends of their time correctly and were willing to play along instead of trying to hold them back, also made some great laws about freedom of religion, education, trade and customs, etc. ah, i’m sure this is a terribly amateur take on absolutism, do not take my word for any of this, it’s just what popped into my mind reading the discussion. 

Circling back on topic, I do agree that it’s a rather naive and unrealistic notion to expect Westeros to fall into a perfect liberal democracy after one person broke the wheel. Westeros as an economy and as a society will need transition time and for that time a parliamentary monarchy would serve them perfectly.

Economic and political systems aren't independent enough from one another to determine one is the independent variable and the other dependent, they feed into each other too much.  Eg, the Northern States which would comprise part of the USA abolished slavery for moral reasons.  They were economically independent enough such that the cost to do so was low.  So both the political will and economic capability were needed for such a drastic change.

[Ser Lepus]

On 5/16/2019 at 9:09 AM, Winter prince said:

My take on it is that the end of the iron throne will be the end of feudalism.  There will be a shift in politics where the noble houses still remain in charge but the head of westeros will be elected.  In theory, this should create more stability and less fighting between the noble houses.

Why would the end of the Iron Throne mean the end of feudalism? Will all the nobles suddenly decide they no longer want to rule their lands? If the lords still keep their castles and rule their lands, it is still feudalism, no matter how the head of state is chosen..

And there is no way they will create Democracy out of thin air. The only ones who choose their leader that way were the Night Watch, and they were a few hundred guys, while Westeros is a huge continent...

And voting who is king won't bring more stability. Historically speaking, elective monarchies were less stable than inherited ones. If you assassinate the king, you get another chance to be voted for the job. And if you seize control by force, you can bribe or force the electors to vote for you (or you just kill everybody who won't support you) in order to justify your coup...

Our own world's Democracy was the product of a long, slow, hard and hazardous evolution, of revolutions and wars...

It was easier in USA because: 1.-There was no noble class. 2.-There was plenty of land for everybody, so there was plenty of wealth and growth potential, which reduced social tensions. 3.-The Americans benefited from the long evolution of the British towards Parliamentarism, from the Magna Carta Libertatum in 1215 to the English Civil Wars (1642-1651), Cromwell's dictatorship, the execution of king Charles I, the Restoration of 1660, the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights of 1689, not to mention all the political and philosophical theories that developed in parallel...

In short, the Americans had all the heavy lifting done by the time they become independent, and had the ripe fruit of Parliamentarism and the political-philosophical theories of Montesquieu and John Locke laid ready on their lap...

You can't do the same in Westeros...

[Ser Lepus]

15 hours ago, no_one... said:

I've  always thought it would end with a Magna Carta type stepping stone towards a division and limitation of powers.   It's a bit disturbing people actually think Facsism is a stepping stone towards a form of Democracy. 

Except the Carta Magna only protected the rights of nobles. It was the first step of the 700 years-long process that finally produced a modern Parliamentary Democracy like UK has now...

[Tyrion1991]

Yeah I mean the showrunners haven’t done their homework if they go the elective monarchy route. I think they believe it wasn’t a real thing and that it’s somehow a half way towards democracy.

The show hasn’t set up a Magna Carta situation and certainly not the need for the monarch to call an assembly or parliament to raise taxes. Lord forbid the notions that the representatives should be elected.

But this sounds very much like the Holy Roman Empire where each of the Wardens becomes an elector count. Given that the HRE was a disaster and dominated by the Habsburgs for centuries  without any improvement in the lot of the common people it does not fill me with confidence. This system didn’t prevent the 30 Years War from occurring. Absolutist France would be a better alternative.

Honestly I’d prefer if they were more nuanced. At the minute they just want to have Dany represent everything that’s bad in the world whilst our stoic heroes browbeat her condescendingly. Why not have her want to abolish serfdom or curtail the “over mighty subjects” with her Lords? Why not have her do a Justinian and get somebody to write up an actual law code? People put cities to the sword all the time in the ancient and medieval world. I don’t understand the characters belief that killing Dany will change that or that it’s somehow uniquely cruel.

[snow is the man]

On 5/16/2019 at 9:22 AM, StoneColdJorahMormont said:

I'm guessing to be King only requires a birth right, to be a prime minister requires votes from the people... all the people.

So if the throne is destroyed and someone needs to be elected to rule... they will want to keep the people, rich and poor happy to continue to get votes.

So your saying people wouldn't vote against their own interest? Several of the most horrible governments the world has ever seen were voted in. The nazi's for example were voted in and then burned down the..I can't spell it so I will just say parliment and blamed it on communist and jewish people which allowed him to take full control. This is exacty what would happen in westeros.

I am all for democracy in real life and around the twentieth century. However the key to a democracy that truly works is a reliable media that informs the people of what is going on even if the government doesn't want it known. Westeros doesn't have that.  That's ignoring how easy it would be to have votes either get thrown away or some added by the local lords in that area. westeros needs an absolute monarchy to progress further so they will get to the point where they can get to democracy.

 

 

[House Cambodia]

Whilst it would be nonsense for people in a mediaeval world to suddenly leap to a 21st-century political system, there is a historical argument for suggesting the peasants would be better off. In Westeros we don't know quite how many people have died, but most of the aristocracy seems to have been wiped out and the smallfolks have suffered serious losses. A major factor in the demise of feudalism in Europe was a similar-scale mass loss of life in the Black Death. The Black Death, which killed off rich and poor indiscriminately, caused a massive labour shortage. As a result, for the first time peasants were in a situation that if they didn't like the terms of their lord, they could simply up sticks and find another lord who needed their labour and might offer them a better situation. So in Westeros, it doesn't require someone with unprecedented political imagination to change the lot of the peasantry, it just requires a humane monarch who will ensure the lords are more liberally-inclined to allow freedom of movement and let economics take the lead.

[snow is the man]

8 hours ago, Ser Lepus said:

Why would the end of the Iron Throne mean the end of feudalism? Will all the nobles suddenly decide they no longer want to rule their lands? If the lords still keep their castles and rule their lands, it is still feudalism, no matter how the head of state is chosen..

And there is no way they will create Democracy out of thin air. The only ones who choose their leader that way were the Night Watch, and they were a few hundred guys, while Westeros is a huge continent...

And voting who is king won't bring more stability. Historically speaking, elective monarchies were less stable than inherited ones. If you assassinate the king, you get another chance to be voted for the job. And if you seize control by force, you can bribe or force the electors to vote for you (or you just kill everybody who won't support you) in order to justify your coup...

Our own world's Democracy was the product of a long, slow, hard and hazardous evolution, of revolutions and wars...

It was easier in USA because: 1.-There was no noble class. 2.-There was plenty of land for everybody, so there was plenty of wealth and growth potential, which reduced social tensions. 3.-The Americans benefited from the long evolution of the British towards Parliamentarism, from the Magna Carta Libertatum in 1215 to the English Civil Wars (1642-1651), Cromwell's dictatorship, the execution of king Charles I, the Restoration of 1660, the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights of 1689, not to mention all the political and philosophical theories that developed in parallel...

In short, the Americans had all the heavy lifting done by the time they become independent, and had the ripe fruit of Parliamentarism and the political-philosophical theories of Montesquieu and John Locke laid ready on their lap...

You can't do the same in Westeros...

Eaxctly. The founding fathers were able to make a government that was designed by seeing what had worked in the past and what didn't and tweaking it just a little this way or that way.  And even then if you look at history look at how often we almost came to falling apart. We had a massive ocean (for the time) between the incredibly strong european powers and us. Yeah canada was owned by the british but they just had enough to defend that area. In order to invade they needed to ship in troops. Westeros in the show doesn't have that threat from foreign powers either or not to any real extent after the fall of valyria. 

[snow is the man]

38 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

Whilst it would be nonsense for people in a mediaeval world to suddenly leap to a 21st-century political system, there is a historical argument for suggesting the peasants would be better off. In Westeros we don't know quite how many people have died, but most of the aristocracy seems to have been wiped out and the smallfolks have suffered serious losses. A major factor in the demise of feudalism in Europe was a similar-scale mass loss of life in the Black Death. The Black Death, which killed off rich and poor indiscriminately, caused a massive labour shortage. As a result, for the first time peasants were in a situation that if they didn't like the terms of their lord, they could simply up sticks and find another lord who needed their labour and might offer them a better situation. So in Westeros, it doesn't require someone with unprecedented political imagination to change the lot of the peasantry, it just requires a humane monarch who will ensure the lords are more liberally-inclined to allow freedom of movement and let economics take the lead.

This is true. Although the black plauge wiped out ALOT of europe  as in between 30% to 60%. It got so bad that people actually had to come up with new inventions to deal with the huge loss of labor. The show didn't show alot about the many many noble houses in westeros but instead focused on the very big ones. The book showed how there were an incredible amount of noble houses in westeros and while more then a few were wiped out or beaten to within an inch of absolute annihalation there are still an incredible amount left. Also the black death also had a religous argument to it where alot of people thought it was punishment for one thing or another. However I don't think enough of westeros's nobles and common people died to have something like the "awakening" so to speak that they had after the black death in europe.

 

However I imagine the people could get some benefit.

[no_one...]

48 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

So your saying people wouldn't vote against their own interest? Several of the most horrible governments the world has ever seen were voted in. The nazi's for example were voted in and then burned down the..I can't spell it so I will just say parliment and blamed it on communist and jewish people which allowed him to take full control. This is exacty what would happen in westeros.

I am all for democracy in real life and around the twentieth century. However the key to a democracy that truly works is a reliable media that informs the people of what is going on even if the government doesn't want it known. Westeros doesn't have that.  That's ignoring how easy it would be to have votes either get thrown away or some added by the local lords in that area. westeros needs an absolute monarchy to progress further so they will get to the point where they can get to democracy.

 

 

In the show the Targ dynasty was absolute.  The North on 2 occasions had the Lords vote a Stark to be their King.  The Freefolk chose Mance as their King.  There's the Free City of Bravos with unknown form of government formed by free people.  Farther East has more varieties of governments.  In otherwords there are many in show options to consider, but absolute Monarchy isn't one of them, since it's the status quo.

 In our world the blending of the Viking Thing government and their legal structure allowed for nobles to assume agency to insist on the Magna Carta.  This kicked off the long road to modern democracy, not some fairy tale of a benevolent Monarchy.

[no_one...]

8 hours ago, Ser Lepus said:

Except the Carta Magna only protected the rights of nobles. It was the first step of the 700 years-long process that finally produced a modern Parliamentary Democracy like UK has now...

I think we agreed, The use of the word "except" has confused me.

[snow is the man]

20 minutes ago, no_one... said:

In the show the Targ dynasty was absolute.  The North on 2 occasions had the Lords vote a Stark to be their King.  The Freefolk chose Mance as their King.  There's the Free City of Bravos with unknown form of government formed by free people.  Farther East has more varieties of governments.  In otherwords there are many in show options to consider, but absolute Monarchy isn't one of them, since it's the status quo.

 In our world the blending of the Viking Thing government and their legal structure allowed for nobles to assume agency to insist on the Magna Carta.  This kicked off the long road to modern democracy, not some fairy tale of a benevolent Monarchy.

No the targ dynasty was absolute when they had the dragons . At the time before the targs lost their dragons the only thing that could threaten targ rule was another targ. After that they were walking a tight rope. Also the north did those when their big leader died. And no the show has feudilism not absolute monarchy. I think that after the dragons died out was when feudilism really started in westeros. Before that a targ could essentially tell the lords of westeros to change their rules and customs and the lords obeyed because to do otherwise resulted in destruction. They made the starks give up ALOT of land to the nights watch and the starks originally didn't want to. They end the law of first night and several others as well that had been in place for thousands of years. To show a real world example of a an absolute monarch and their rule  you should look to the czars decision (can't remember which one) to end the practice of having serfs which were treated as slaves more or less. None of the nobles wanted this and doing it the way he did crashed the economy however he had the power to do it and everyone had to listen.

 

[StoneColdJorahMormont]

1 hour ago, snow is the man said:

So your saying people wouldn't vote against their own interest? Several of the most horrible governments the world has ever seen were voted in. The nazi's for example were voted in and then burned down the..I can't spell it so I will just say parliment and blamed it on communist and jewish people which allowed him to take full control. This is exacty what would happen in westeros.

I am all for democracy in real life and around the twentieth century. However the key to a democracy that truly works is a reliable media that informs the people of what is going on even if the government doesn't want it known. Westeros doesn't have that.  That's ignoring how easy it would be to have votes either get thrown away or some added by the local lords in that area. westeros needs an absolute monarchy to progress further so they will get to the point where they can get to democracy.

 

 

Of course people have been elected and not lived up to their promises... those people usually don't get voted back in the next time round...

Buts it better to have half a chance of someone looking out for you based on your own choice... if it fails then at least you tried than having no say in it and how they turn out coming down to luck.

[snow is the man]

5 minutes ago, StoneColdJorahMormont said:

Of course people have been elected and not lived up to their promises... those people usually don't get voted back in the next time round...

Buts it better to have half a chance of someone looking out for you based on your own choice... if it fails then at least you tried than having no say in it and how they turn out coming down to luck.

Yes I agree. However when it comes to the time and culture that westeros is supposed to be in comparison to the real world it would be impossible to have a democracy in something bigger then a city state.  In westeros you would have incedible voter intimadation,throwing out votes,and making them up so that any election would be pointless. What I was refrencing was how you said that they would have a reason to make the poor and the rick better off. I won't go into modern politics but it seems more about the message then the actualy policy or act that matters. Westeros doesn't have the printing press or a very high level of literacy  so a press would more or less be someone yelling things out and could be changed in a thousand ways or never get there in the first place and noone would know.