Response to a main page post

I would like to respond to a main page post, reposted below:

"Sharp's next argument about obedience made me think. He brings up the point that a ruler's power depends greatly on the obedience of the subjects, which restates the importance of the people. Revolutions and other oppositions to the government happened because the people were tired of obeying laws they did not like. Now he raises the question why are people obedient in the first place? In answer to this question, he tells us that obedience is habitual. We follow the laws because we have for a long time and obedience prevents unwanted interruptions within our daily schedules. If obedience is habitual, why do we have strikes and nonviolent action? He quoted Thomas Hill Green who pointed out an important fact: "obedience will scarcely be habitual unless it is loyal, not forced.""

I do believe that a leader's power is based in his followers.... it's been made clear in the past (examples given in Sharp) where people just refused to follow orders, but still lived their fairly normal lives, thereby defeating the disliked ruler. And I would say that obedience is habitual... but I also think part of it is that it is very difficult to maintain or begin a revolution. The oppression has to be extreme. Especially in our form of government, where there is the opportunity for change peacefully, and that the populace has that power via voting. So I think part of it is that we rationalize that we picked our rulers, so what have we to complain about. I think strikes and nonviolent actions are used (for example, the bus boycotts and other Civil Rights actions) when the system is internally flawed, but of a good structure. The problem wasn't democracy... the problem was in how people had manipulated it... giving only certain people the vote, offering only a small selection of candidates... as well as the cultural issues of racism, very obvious in the south.

I think this may also be part of the Bush issue. I don't particularly want to get into my personal beliefs, but I will agree that many people seem dissatisfied with Bush. Why don't they act? Well some are, as noticed by participation of Juniata students in marches and such. But I don't think it's widespread enough. Some author, for another class, said that things need to be "evenly and widely distributed" for it to have an effect (I think he was talking about economic/ wealth redistribution but I think it works here too). In addition to this, I think people still fall back to the "we elected him, he has just a few years left... I'll wait for the next election to make my voice heard." Is this a good attitude? I'd say no. If we rely only on the mechanisms we have built into the system to make change, change will be slow. Besides, not enough people vote anyways. It's pathetic. While I would not participate, I feel that if people want change, or have an issue they feel passionately about, they need to act. Otherwise, they're just a bunch of talk and I don't respect that. Do something.