An english word for the "desire to control others"

[Cognitive Dissident]

word "statist" is a negative pejorative that conveys control.....

once in an online debate i labeled a person who was an avid bush supporter as essentially statist, he became apoplectically offended.  

i vote for statist as the new "librul" pejorative

stat·ism (sttzm)
n
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

statist [ˈsteɪtɪst]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an advocate of statism

In a way, the relatively new word "statist" (coined by libertarians in the 1940s) has accomplished some of what I'm talking about..

But "statist" really just implies someone who believes in the virtue of the state and the average person does not automatically connect it to the desire to control others.

Italics are mine, for emphasis.

[Dalebert]

word "statist" is a negative pejorative that conveys control.....

It's also too broad. Technically, many libertarians are statists as well. It's like saying I'm not a theist because the god I believe in is really small and not mean like the one in the Bible.

[anarchir]

Authoritarian. Or domineering.

[alaric89]

top.

[Jester]

domineering lead me to bossy or control mania.

[Aahz]

word "statist" is a negative pejorative that conveys control.....

It's also too broad. Technically, many libertarians are statists as well. It's like saying I'm not a theist because the god I believe in is really small and not mean like the one in the Bible.

Are you saying that minarchists are not "driven by fear, envy and centrally the desire to control others through force"?

[Dalebert]

Are you saying that minarchists are not "driven by fear, envy and centrally the desire to control others through force"?

All of them? No.

[Aahz]

What reason for having a state is not based in fear, envy or a desire to control?

[Cognitive Dissident]

What reason for having a state is not based in fear, envy or a desire to control?

How about a misguided belief that the state creates an environment in which property rights are protected, allowing a broader segment of society to voluntarily participate in the creation of greater wealth for all?  I think mini-statists believe monopoly force is necessary for "the rule of law." (Not legislation...just the protection of rights.)  I think they believe a stateless society would be like Somalia is today.

Of course, I don't agree, but I'm not sure humankind is actually ready, quite yet, for principled liberty.  I think currently, it will tend to break out into states, but I think as humankind advances, the advantages of a voluntary order will become apparent, and the voluntary order will win (unless there is a new dark age.)  I believe history seems to show a very slow tendency toward a more voluntary order, of which I see democracy/republic to be an awkward expression (the error being that ruling of the collective is still destructive.)

[Aahz]

How about a misguided belief that the state creates an environment in which property rights are protected, allowing a broader segment of society to voluntarily participate in the creation of greater wealth for all? I think mini-statists believe monopoly force is necessary for "the rule of law." (Not legislation...just the protection of rights.)  I think they believe a stateless society would be like Somalia is today.

So, wouldn't that be a fear of "lawlessness"?

BTW, I basically agree with the "prophecies" of your second paragraph.

-Aahz

[Cognitive Dissident]

How about a misguided belief that the state creates an environment in which property rights are protected, allowing a broader segment of society to voluntarily participate in the creation of greater wealth for all? I think mini-statists believe monopoly force is necessary for "the rule of law." (Not legislation...just the protection of rights.)  I think they believe a stateless society would be like Somalia is today.

So, wouldn't that be a fear of "lawlessness"?

BTW, I basically agree with the "prophecies" of your second paragraph.

-Aahz

I don't think it has to be fear.  I think it can be (seen as) a practical view.  For example, I have a friend who would never vote for Ron Paul over the leading Republican.  He does so because he believes the Republican vote is "practical."  He feels Republicans maximize his potential as a businessman.  I think mini-statists think they are more "practical" than (for lack of a better term) anarchists, not more fearful.  I think they feel the state (properly limited--which is the logical fallacy, IMO) maximizes their liberty (the state which is powerful enough to protect your liberty is powerful enough--and more importantly, incentivized--to abuse it.)

In a way, it reminds me of the term "homophobic," which I detest, because it labels bigots as fearful, rather than driven by a basic distaste (and yes, I think there is a huge difference--it basically goes to ad hominem attack, rather than to persuasion.)  I should note that I once was someone who would be labeled a "homophobe" by people inclined to use the term, but never had any fear, whatsoever, of homosexuality.  I thought it was purely unnatural and grotesque.  It took maturity to recognize that any opposition I had to it was just as stupid as trying to outlaw pizza without cheese, just because I could not imagine enjoying it.  It doesn't have to do with being afraid of pizza without cheese, but not having to live in a world where someone "wants to expose me to grotesque stuff."

Fear is a possibility, but not a foregone conclusion.

[Aahz]

For example, I have a friend who would never vote for Ron Paul over the leading Republican.  He does so because he believes the Republican vote is "practical."  He feels Republicans maximize his potential as a businessman.

This wouldn't be "fear", it would be "envy" (in the broad sense of greed and envy being nearly synonymous).  

I think mini-statists think they are more "practical" than (for lack of a better term) anarchists, not more fearful.  I think they feel the state (properly limited--which is the logical fallacy, IMO) maximizes their liberty (the state which is powerful enough to protect your liberty is powerful enough--and more importantly, incentivized--to abuse it.)

They my think of themselves as practical, but what they think has no direct bearing on the reality of the situation. Afterall, who wants to think of themselves as fearful?

I agree they think feel the state maximizes their liberty.  But their desire for the state to maximize their liberty is a result of their fear of losing that liberty should the state go away.  And of their envy of a situation in which they could have more liberty.

Either way, it's still an expression of their desire to control others in order to achieve something for themselves - be it more profit or more liberty.

-Aahz

[Cognitive Dissident]

For example, I have a friend who would never vote for Ron Paul over the leading Republican.  He does so because he believes the Republican vote is "practical."  He feels Republicans maximize his potential as a businessman.

This wouldn't be "fear", it would be "envy" (in the broad sense of greed and envy being nearly synonymous).  

I don't think he envies anyone, but I probably misunderstand your application of the term.

I think mini-statists think they are more "practical" than (for lack of a better term) anarchists, not more fearful.  I think they feel the state (properly limited--which is the logical fallacy, IMO) maximizes their liberty (the state which is powerful enough to protect your liberty is powerful enough--and more importantly, incentivized--to abuse it.)

They my think of themselves as practical, but what they think has no direct bearing on the reality of the situation. Afterall, who wants to think of themselves as fearful?

I agree they think feel the state maximizes their liberty.  But their desire for the state to maximize their liberty is a result of their fear of losing that liberty should the state go away.  And of their envy of a situation in which they could have more liberty.

Either way, it's still an expression of their desire to control others in order to achieve something for themselves - be it more profit or more liberty.

-Aahz

The reason I feel it's important that they think it practical is that they do not do so out of fear, but out of reason, that they find it logical to apply monopoly force to cause an overall good, rather than to protect from unspeakable horror.  I honestly don't believe it occurs to them to be afraid.  Again, I think the fear attribute is a projection of something that is not always present in them--and I gave an example from personal experience.

As for envy, I think that to be a miss-application of the term, as the ones I know have nothing to be envious of.  They intend to keep their ability to claim wealth, and the believe the Republicans maximize it.

In terms of their desire to control others, I say they see it as no more of a desire to control others as when we desire to control others in our very personal space--that is, when we desire to protect our rights through more principled means.  We see it as a desire to control others.  They see it as a natural extension of the right of self-defense.

Do remember, there are those who believe our insistence on self-determination and property rights is, in itself, a violation of their right to live in a property-free and (for lack of a better term) utopian society.

[snowdog2012]

word "statist" is a negative pejorative that conveys control.....

It's also too broad.

Another one is

-> Dominator

I believe talk show host Thom Hartmann uses the term "Dominator" frequently  and has built it up.

[alaric89]

How about "they who have the strap on"?
Dominater would be a cool name for a strap on factory name.
hmmmm.
I call it.