I have a friend who likes to argue that it was a mistake to rebel against the Mad King because, as bad as he was, the instability and civil war that followed the change of dynasties was far worse. She thinks the lords should have just knuckled under, tried not to provoke him (no going up to his castle and screaming threats), and waited for him to die, saving their reform attempts for a rational monarch. I’m sort of wondering what you think of that logic?

I think that’s kind of crazy. Aerys represented a fundamental threat to the social contract and the war to remove him was a just one. 

Let’s explore what knuckling under means – it means a total suspension of basic due process. No nobleman in the country is safe from arbitrary arrest and execution, on the whims of a paranoid schizophrenic, and peasants who stick their heads up are going to get it even worse. 

Moreover, Aerys is not about to confine himself to attacking the nobility. He’s also busily turning King’s Landing into a giant incendiary device so that he can be reborn as a dragon. Yes, he only activates it because the city has fallen, but what happens if Aerys gets the sniffles, thinks he’s being poisoned, and turns to Plan Wildfire to “save” himself? 

So no, waiting for him to die is not a good idea.