The Story of the Clan: Above the Law with Immunities (Hypothetical Thought Experiment on Hate and Corruption)

We have been using a hypothetical, philosophical thought experiment to explore the impact corruption can have on communities, economies, and society as a whole. Few approaches are more effective than stories, as they allow us to envision how corruption might function in theoretical practice. In this piece, we examine the concept of being “above the law” and how such a reality could affect future economic and social growth.

In this context, consider what happens when the philosophical purpose of law is replaced by a more self-serving version. Ideally, the law is the practical expression of higher moral principles such as freedom, free commerce, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. These can be seen as universal principles, though different cultures place emphasis on different ones. For example, in the United States, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, human and civil rights, and self-government are central to the national identity.

In our scenario, a coordinated group of friends protects each other even when their actions are illegal or immoral. What might begin as childish favoritism becomes far more serious when it starts influencing and distorting institutional outcomes—such as ignoring victims’ rights and rewarding perpetrators despite clear evidence of wrongdoing. In our story, witnesses, whistleblowers, and well-intentioned people are targeted and placed on harm lists. It is important to note that the vast majority of officials serve honorably, but those who misuse authority undermine institutional health, making it difficult for ethical professionals to work alongside them. Nor should they be required to because of the variance in purpose and the damage they cause communities.

Without checks and balances, such groups can continue to manipulate outcomes—harming some members of society while illegally and immorally benefiting others. Loyalty to the clan identity, combined with a willingness to misrepresent the truth to protect its members, becomes a dangerous component. Targets may include community leaders a clan member dislikes, individuals who have witnessed wrongdoing, or people with traits the group despises—such as belonging to the “wrong” race or religion (You can really pick anything people can differentiate themselves from).

Philosophically, this raises the question of when and how legal immunities should apply. If an error is a genuine mistake, the official should be given the opportunity to learn from it and avoid repeating it. However, when an action is deliberate and intended to misuse authority for personal or criminal gain, immunity should not apply. This debate remains unresolved, keeping it an important subject for public discourse. Freedom of speech remains essential to that dialogue.

This article offers a useful perspective for examining how corruption operates and how immunity can shape it. When exploring ideas, one does not need to immediately agree or disagree with the ideas presented, but rather understand it as part of a broader framework of knowledge. Reading widely from different perspectives—philosophical, economic, social, and even more narrowly focused viewpoints—helps build a fuller understanding of the issue.

Working Paper Immunity or Impunity?

*This is a hypothetical, philosophical thought experiment designed to explore concepts. Take with a grain of salt we will write in a positive ending. It is a learning exercise.