Make up a word for me

[Balshazaar]

I need a word to describe a certain type of law or edict, for use in a paper that I'm writing.  Basically, the situation is a law that takes advantage of citizens' trends towards obedience to carry through some nefarious agenda.  For example, in the '94 genocide in Rwanda, society was known to be very obedient, due to a history of reinforcement of this behavior and the belief that government leaders were 'divine.' The Hutu government took advantage of that by issuing an edict that Hutus should kill Tutsi.  

So, make me up a word that sounds good.  I thought of obedientism, but I have to use the word 'obedient' so much in my paper that it's confusing.  I'm also using the term paternalism a lot in my paper.  Something that sounds good next to paternalism would be ideal.  

 

[Scraper]

There's a good republican joke in here, but I will abstain.

[Dramatist]

Scrumtrulescent.  :lol:

[Sepiche]

Livestockification?

[zinckiwi]

obsequity (from obsequious)
and/or aquiescent

[Balshazaar]

obsequity (from obsequious)
and/or aquiescent

Hmm...   so close...

I guess "acquiesce" is what the citizens under that govt. would do.  But, what do you call what the government is doing in taking advantage of the citizens' trends to acquiesce?

[mb737]

loyalism

what's the thing for the pope?  Papal supremacy or something?  Infallibility, except ism:

Infallibilitism

thrall behavior

Stockholm syndrome

ed - zealotry?  conformitism? (do what everyone else does?)

jeez, now you've got me thinking about it!  

collective behavior (like colony animals do - ants, prairie dogs, etc. )

fanaticism (in a way)

[Velvet Elvis]

sheeple syndrome

[Balshazaar]

I might go with "malevolence."

[sgoldj]

obsequity (from obsequious)
and/or aquiescent

Hmm...   so close...

I guess "acquiesce" is what the citizens under that govt. would do.  But, what do you call what the government is doing in taking advantage of the citizens' trends to acquiesce?

Typical.

[Orion_Green]

How about conformistocracy, from conformism with the suffix -cracy?

[SpaceLord]

Despotize?

Coercionalize?

[zinckiwi]

Sorry, missed the fact that you wanted the term from the state's view and not the citizens'.

I'm not sure there *is* a word. You might have to settle for a phrase. "Exploitation of [the citizenry's] confidence"?

Other words/concepts that spring to mind, not meant as actual suggestions but perhaps something will spark an idea in your mind:

lack of skepticism
cultish
suggestion (in the psychological sense of the word)
charismatic

[Balshazaar]

@ sgoldj: hahaha    

After finding that I was spending precious time thinking about this when I should be, well, writing the paper, I decided to just go with malevolence.  It works pretty well.  I defined it in the paper and then put in a footnote indicating that I was aware that I wasn't using it in the traditional sense.  

That got me thinking about something:  

[HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION]

[HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION]

[HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION]


I'm not in any way implying that this has happened or will happen.  Please, DO NOT discuss it in terms of our current president, or in terms of any current global situations.

If the President of the United States were suddenly to go on national television and ask that Americans do something completely morally reprehensible, say, murder all of the foreigners they could find, what do you think would happen?  Who is morally responsible?  Who is legally responsible?

I think that a lot of people would do it SOLELY based on the fact that the president asked people to do it.

I think the president is the only one who could be held legally responsible for this, assuming that the actions were widespread.  Individuals could merely claim that they did it on the mandate of the president.

I think that the individuals that commit the acts, and the president, are morally responsible for it.  As individuals, we have the power to exercise our free will to refuse to commit a morally reprehensible act.  Those who submit their free will to the president's request are submitting themselves to the president's moral responsibility, and thus, share the burden.

What do you think would happen, and who would be morally and legally responsible?