Then, other posters, such as me, can see your reasoning and comment either in support of, or against your proposal. I guarantee others will take the discussion off-topic by gradual drift, such as by arguing: "some rulers do not force, or coerce their subjects, therefore, there is no valid reason for the subjects to be disobedient," or, "people are disobedient regardless of a ruler's disposition." When this happens, try to keep the discussion on point.
So, my commentary on the subject:
Any coercion on the part of a 'ruler' [I presume you chose that word as being all-inclusive; divinity to the most base of mortal rulers], will at least accept that disobedience will occur, not that they accept its validity, but that they accept human nature will rebel against it. What is interesting to me is that despotic rulers will always argue that they have the agency to impose rules that will foster disobedience, but deny the agency of their captive subjects to be disobedient.