Creating Stronger Systems Encourages the Achievement of Societal Goals (The Story of the Clan: Hate & Corruption)

 What we learn from thought experiments is how systems might function under different scenarios, pressures and conditions. Corruption can be understood as the misuse of resources for illicit gain, while hate divides society and diminishes the rights and dignity of others. The Story of the Clan was designed as a philosophical thought experiment to explore how these forces operate across a range of circumstances in a hypothetical situation—from extreme levels of hate to systemic misuse of power and resources.

A group discussing the central
roots of society.
“What is the essence of life?
To serve others and to do good.”
Aristotle

In the story, the community experiences a decline in both population and economic health. This mirrors what often occurs in places that are poorly aligned with market realities or governed by decision-making that stray from the foundational principles of a healthy economy. When these failures were successfully challenged and new leadership and ideas emerged, the result was improved social well-being and a stronger sense of community. Over time, this renewal encouraged broader-based investment and development—more inclusive than what had existed before.

The story also illustrates how both official and unofficial rules shape the way corruption and hate are handled. In this case, religious minorities were openly targeted, children were harmed, victims were told they deserved mistreatment because of their beliefs, an inner social network spread intentionally false rumors to damage credibility, employment was blocked because of those rumors, and parents were publically mocked by this group for trying to protect their families. Some of the associated members were involved in other misbehaviors in other areas and investigations into those were sidelined. Witnesses and whistleblowers were subjected to fabricated, hate-driven accusations. Ultimately, the system failed to function as expected, creating two classes of citizenship and eroding basic trust in institutions.

These events were not unprecedented within the story. Patterns of tolerated misconduct and group-based wrongdoing had become normalized in some social groups. Good officials had to navigate and work around more corrupted ones. While victimization can be a subjective concept, there is value in examining how openly embraced wrongdoing exposes systemic weaknesses. Failure, when confronted honestly, can lead to improvement—and those improvements can positively affect both social cohesion and economic health. In theory and practice, the two are deeply intertwined; one cannot fully exist without the other.

The story also offers a silver lining by illustrating how such wrongdoing can be challenged. When individuals openly confronted corruption and spoke out against hate, meaningful change followed. It may not be popular but it is necessary. Many involved were both victims and witnesses, and whistleblowers learned that unwritten rules often carry more power than formal ones. Still, ethical officials and community members recognized that long-standing “above the law” behavior was corrosive. It was the collective action of the community that ultimately restored purpose where institutions had deliberately fallen short. They did not solve everything but they moved the needle and installed a higher moral conscious and expectation. 

What this story ultimately teaches us is the importance of placing people in leadership who genuinely understand and uphold shared societal values. One might call this the best and brightest over the most connected. The most connected sometimes have obligations that are not in direct alignment with society or their needs (hence, they were chosen and vetted for those positions for a reason.). There will always be individuals and groups willing to undermine institutions for personal gain and mistreat others if left unchecked. Such behavior imposes real costs on society. When checks and balances are weak or wrongdoing goes uncorrected, social trust and economic stability suffer. It is therefore in our collective best interest to encourage decision-making rooted in shared values—because doing so strengthens institutional trust, social cohesion, and economic exchange.

As a side note those that do challenge wrongdoing have much more value and concern over a healthy society when compared to those who engaged in misbehaviors or silently accept the "rules of the road". Religion, race and other superficial differences have nothing to do with one's true value in society. In a merit based system, which is what any society should strive, those who use such superficial differences are basing their values on things that have little association with performance or their positive impact. People who engage in or allow hate and corruption are not truly doing their duty nor are they helping society. Societies are built from underlining values that creates expectations and it is always important to maintain those values even if some may feel they are not of particular importance. It just is what it is. As you move into the new year think of your values. Think of how your beliefs and votes help to better ensure the right kind of people are entrusted in positions of authority. We all own the future together, don't let anyone tell you different.

*This is a thought experiment so feel to change up the elements and come to whatever conclusion you desire.