Lawlessness Through Corruption and Extremism? The Perspectives of Hate Stakeholders During Sociological Change

Cambridge defines lawlessness as "behavior that is illegal or not controlled by laws.".  Generally, where the law works well there is wisdom and morality as a focus for creating the best society we can. To serve essential justice is a noble goal. Likewise, where corruption and hate exist it circumvents our laws in order to create beneficiaries. Thus, as we explore the concept of law we should also explore some of the changes that may be occurring and the different ways in which institutional integrity should be protected. Rewarding and protecting intentionally misbehaviors works against positive change.

The article is focused more on a philosophical question for learning purposes only. Take with a grain of salt. Personally, I think most of our systems function very well but there is always room for improvement because a some issues seem to be more common. A noble goal would be to improve them to the best one can and in turn draw as much support for institutions as possible. As a secondary goal, one might argue it would also be helpful to use situations to adjust and improve even when there is staunch resistance to a higher functioning system. 

Three studies we might look at to understand the socio cultural factors....

1.) Organizational Structures and Adaptation: Employee performance improved with structural adaptation.   

2.) Sociological Identity Change: Peoples identities, values, cultures, etc. change. (Some things can be carried through from generation to generation.)

3.) Institutions, Cultures and Structures: There are changes in symbolism, culture, demographics, etc. that seek further develop our institutions. 

Hypothetical Example:

Imagine if you could coordinate a large group of people to engage in mistreatment and misbehavior of some target they view as worthy of hate (Perhaps a history of targets). That person may have done nothing to them or may have been so brass as to enforce appropriate boundaries against disturbingly aggressive behavior. Based on many different factors this person (s) is/are chosen to be on the receiving end of dehumanization.

Let us further imagine that this group of people have a number of corrupted officials/clan members that have a history in engaging in aggressive and illegal behaviors through the use of their local positions and offices. It makes no difference how many people come forward because the clan has a corrosive influence on local justice systems. Fraternization and conflict of interest issues abound.

Three partially successful waves of hate and moving into a forth wave of hate, character assassinations, threats, attempted assaults, etc. with full knowledge of clan aligned officials. Once you step outside of that system the same behaviors might have put a number of officials and people in prison under a different discerning eye. Thus, aligning the local system to the needs of its people and nation is necessary at a time when major sociological and economic changes are occurring.

The Perspectives: 

How might you look at from varying perspectives. As you widen the perception there becomes increasingly more stakeholders going out exponentially, 

1. The Hate Target: The hate target may view corruption as normalized with no backstops and no respect for the law, human rights, or civility. 

2. The Perspective of Perpetrators: Misusing official opinions and position to help fellow clan members achieve certain goals. Hoping to perhaps to finally remove their targets.

3. The Extremist and Militias: Partnering with a few corrupted officials to further religious, economic, and social pain on people they view as less (pick a race, religion or ideology). They hate government and struggle to understand reasonably criticism that encourages improvement from wholesale rejection (rewarded in this example system).

4. Outside Government: Knowing full well we have a corruption issue, multiple complaints by multiple people came forward, but lacking the political or moral will to correct. Checking the partisan environment to determine if stamping down on extremism and corruption would not politically be seen well. Earnestness in hoping they can build the best institutions they can but are struggling with the environment. 

5. The Community: People outside the clan know poor behaviors have occurred and people have been harmed but their complaints have been ignored and retaliated against. People within the clan know things are wrong but don't really want to be disliked by their social networks by humanizing the targets.

6. The Average Citizen: They have low trust in general in the institution because they know these poor behaviors occur and there are few backstops. Some judges, politicians, etc. have struggled for decades with these issues and no meaningful change has occurred. 

7. The Benefactors of Hate: The initial launchers of hate rumors are happy they received financial and social benefits. They know they are protected by a number of corrupted officials and the local justice system. They have done this 2X with immunity. 

8. The Young: They are tired of seeing open displays of hate and corruption and believe that all people should be treated fairly. They have hopes for their institutions and but we have suffered from poor decision making of self-interested parties (partisanship on important issues). They want an environment in which they flourish and are parting to get politically involved in a way that will impact elections.

9. The Good Official: They want to make sure the taxpayer money is used wisely and that systems run as best they can based on their missions. Good people should be promoted and poor people removed. They want trust with the community and they want to recruit the best and brightest. Recognition for their good work.

10. The Corrupted Official: They want their friends, political party, ideologies, fellow clans members, etc to move ahead and know they can get some social and financial benefits if they can continue their behaviors. They have little interest in higher institutional performance. Having people stroke their egos is a benefit and looking good to others in their social group helps them continue on their path. 

11. The Clan: Not really sure how it all started but someone told them a rumor and they figured it was a good idea to spread it because they have been raised in a cultic environment. They are not necessarily good or bad people but limited knowledge in their homogeneous clan world view so easy to manipulate and turn into flying monkeys. They would benefit from cultural exposure and new ways of viewing the world. 

*This is a hypothetical example for learning purposes. Its like a thought experiment on freedom of speech, religion, Constitution, civil/human rights. Take with a grain of salt.