So a person who is psychologically capable of murdering has more control over me than one who isn't, and both are less in control than, say, a tsunami? Maybe, but neither can get at things I give freely to a friend? Control is the incapability of either friendship or self-defense, in my opinion, so yes, in a way always it requires numbing or killing something or someone. Leashes transform those on both ends.
"So a person who is psychologically capable of murdering has more control over me than one who isn't,"
More relevantly, a person who is both capable and willing to restrict your freedoms, potentially even unto death, has more control over you than a person who doesn't.
This isn't abstract theory. This is a description of "government". Would you pay any attention to the people claiming to be "the government" if they didn't have credible mechanisms for backing up their demands?
It is preferable that government not be solely founded on this power relation. It shouldn't be considered "sufficient" for good government. But it is certainly "necessary".
Note: downvotes are not a rebuttal. Not that I think that it's possible to dispute that statement by means other than "I'd like the world to work differently", but if someone were prepared to offer an argument, that would redound far more to their credit. And if you think I'm wrong, don't let me dangle in ignorance, otherwise I'm liable to keep saying such things.
The original quote does fall apart, as most quotes do, upon closer inspection.
Say you can kill a man, but irregardless of the threat to their life said man would refuse any and all of your orders, who can then be said to have 'control'?
In the end control means the ability to influence outcomes. There are many metrics, and for some choice of metric the capability of destruction is control.
The original Dune quote makes perfect sense in context. Paul was talking about destroying the spice supply by making Arrakis barren of sandworms. "Control" in this context is control of the spice, specifically being able to control there being none at all.
