Most of us spend a lot of our precious time trying to control other human beings. Perhaps it is natural for us to try to control the people closest to us; our family, friends, business colleagues, and acquaintances. There is even moral justification in trying to control the small human beings who are dependent upon us--our children. We have a moral imperative to control them enough to keep them from harm, but it can be hard to find the line that separates keeping them from harm and restraining them from learning and growing as independent individuals.
With other members of our family, there is less justification for trying to control them, but we are capable of a lot of rationalizations about needing to protect them from themselves. When a loved one doesn't seem able to control himself or herself, it is very tempting to step in and try to control them, even when they don't ask us for help. It can be hard to remember that there is a difference between giving them the help they are asking for and trying to control them in ways they don't want.
Friends are abler than family to cut us off if we become too controlling, but there are sometimes temptations to try to control them anyway. That never helps the friendship.
In our business or work life, there are boundaries, either contractual or customary, to help us manage our relationships, such as between employer and employee, buyer and seller, supplier and customer, manager and subordinate, and between co-workers. Still, there are times when we can indulge in manipulative behavior that seeks to control someone. That kind of behavior sometimes "works" in the short run, but it usually carries a heavy cost in the long run.
There is one area of life where our attempts to control others does not seem to be punished. In fact, we are praised for doing our civic duty when we try to use the force of government to control others. Whether it is voting to punish our fellow "citizens" for doing or not doing something or campaigning for certain edicts that would punish them for doing or not doing something, we are encouraged to feel self-righteous for the violence we are promoting. We have been brainwashed from childhood to believe that the majority has the right and even the responsibility to control the behavior of everyone.
Certainly, there are rules that we all agree we should follow in order to maintain a functioning society. Nobody wants to be murdered, assaulted, or robbed, so we can all agree that those behaviors must be controlled. However, the vast majority of people have the self-control not to murder, assault, or rob their fellow men without the threat of violence being the only thing stopping them from those actions. Those people who don't have the self-control to refrain from murder, assault or robbery generally are not controlled by threats of violence either. That is why criminals don't obey the laws that try to prohibit their crimes.
Given that threats of violence seldom control criminals who know they are doing wrong, why do we believe we can control people who want to do things they don't believe are wrong? Rulers create victimless crimes by issuing edicts or writing regulations. Some people may alter their behavior due to the threats of violence, but most will not. They will do what they think is right for them and resent the attempt to control their choices.
The people we have the least possibility of controlling are the ones we allow to rule us. People who choose to become politicians and bureaucrats believe they have the right and even the duty to control others. Consequently, they are the least constrained by the normal moral admonition against harming others. That makes them as dangerous if not more dangerous than criminals.
The one person you can and should control is yourself. If you want to live a decent, moral life, all you have to do is give up trying to control others and focus on controlling the one person over whom you have complete control.