Arresting a person for committing a violent crime sounds pretty coercive to me.

Sure does.

But then again, I thought you were talking about cultural change, not just putting band-aids on the problem by locking up guys after they commited a crime.

As does forcing one’s child to go to school because the church leadership convinced you it was a good idea after forming an alliance with the teachers who moved into the neighborhood along with the local police, firefighters, paramedics and social workers.

I don’t know what you mean here.

This would be quite valid if we were talking about, say, Gaza. We are (or at least I am), however, talking about slums in the United States.

You are the one who began talking about “Missionaries to far-away lands” as a model of “success in converting locals to their beliefs.” You also brought up “colonial governments [which] worked best when they were able to teach their skills to local allies.”

Don’t bring up a comparison if you can’t stand to have that comparison criticized.

When your comparison is reduced to absurdity, that’s reductio ad absurdum — a method of demonstrating it was a bad comparison to begin with.

These areas are nominally subject to the same courts and authorities as the non-slum areas and dwellers in the same nation, including you and I. I’m talking about looking for ways to make slum dwellers more than nominally subject to those institutions: What are you talking about?

Merely the cultural change, converting local beliefs, social engineering, etc., topics that you brought up.

If the only thing you were talking about actually was making “slum dwellers more than nominally subject to thsoe institutions,” just put more cops on the beat. The incredibly high price you were willing to pay (in murders, rapes, bad peer groups, etc) implies to me – along with your comparisons to missionaries, colonization, etc – -that you were talking about social change.

I can’t imagine how this can be done to adults and their chidlren without coercion.”

Arresting a person for committing a violent crime sounds pretty coercive to me. As does forcing one’s child to go to school because the church leadership convinced you it was a good idea after forming an alliance with the teachers who moved into the neighborhood along with the local police, firefighters, paramedics and social workers.

“To clarify my critique of your redirection, technical social engineering requires the disenfranchisement of the target population, as you will be abolishing things.

New law-courts, etc, are needed to prevent the locals from accessing their own law-courts to protect their folk ways against their new overlords. Not because the colonists do not have access to lawyers, etc.”

This would be quite valid if we were talking about, say, Gaza. We are (or at least I am), however, talking about slums in the United States. These areas are nominally subject to the same courts and authorities as the non-slum areas and dwellers in the same nation, including you and I. I’m talking about looking for ways to make slum dwellers more than nominally subject to those institutions: What are you talking about?

New law-courts, etc, are needed to prevent the locals from accessing their own law-courts to protect their folk ways against their new overlords. Not because the colonists do not have access to lawyers, etc.

Since the ‘colonizers’ would be employees of the local government, new courts and governmental institutions wouldn’t be needed.

Nice try.

This is a redirection, a logical fallacy.

The part after the comma in your sentence in no way follows from the part of your sentence before the comma.

But do we really need a complete Culture transplant, or just a swap-out of the parts that hurt slum dwellers and their neighbors? If a complete transplant isn’t needed, then why would a cancellation of their civil rights be needed?

I assume you want to change their bad behaviors, and their values (that is, improving their socio-economic status).

I can’t imagine how this can be done to adults and their chidlren without coercion.

Since the ‘colonizers’ would be employees of the local government, new courts and governmental institutions wouldn’t be needed. At most, they would need to be fixed to treat decades of neglect and bad ideas.

The point about old folkways staying put is a valid one. I’ve heard the same thing heard about the Pashtun tribes, that their strict ways are their own traditions and not Islam’s. But do we really need a complete Culture transplant, or just a swap-out of the parts that hurt slum dwellers and their neighbors? If a complete transplant isn’t needed, then why would a cancellation of their civil rights be needed?

Thank you for your pair of comments.

Nice of you to observe that, considering that you were the one who brought up the worst-case scenarios to begin with:P

I didn’t. I pointed out logical and expected results (increase in rapes, murders, robberies, death, mahem, etc).

If I wanted to think of a worst-possible scenario, I would be talking about a wave of riots, the delegitimization of the police force in the eyes of a large fraction of Americans, etc.

But I wanted to stick to inevitable outcomes, not worst-case outcomes.

But I can also think of missionaries of various religions who changed the beliefs of their target populations and the European colonialists whose effects are sometimes discussed in this and other blogs.

Well, it depends, to what extent will you allow the ‘colonists’ to set up their own law-courts, monopolize violence, confiscate property, replace the idigenous population, etc

I’m being non-rhetorical here. If you want a cultural revolution from above, you have to at a mininum dissolve the civil rights of the people in the area, and at a maximum replace them.

If you look at the evangalization fo Africa by Christians and Muslims, for instance, you will find a tremendous amount of change along the line sof how people respond to the question, ‘Is Jesus God’? or ‘Is Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets’? But cultural folkways remain in tact. So, for instance, even though neither Christianity nor Islam have a tradition of female circumcision, Christian and Muslim tribes in eastern Africa which practiced that behavior before conversion continued to practice it after.

More lasting social change was accomplished by the Chinese Communist Party wrt opium consumption and the British in India wrt widow-burning. The British and the Communists did not rely on the power of verbal persuasion, however.

You mentioned the bussing programs of the ’60s and ’70s as a negative example. I can also think of the Korean shopkeepers targeted in the King riots. But I can also think of missionaries of various religions who changed the beliefs of their target populations and the European colonialists whose effects are sometimes discussed in this and other blogs. Can you think of other examples, positive or negative? How does your understanding of my idea jibe with your understanding of what made these situations successes or failures?

Nice of you to observe that, considering that you were the one who brought up the worst-case scenarios to begin with:P

“Certainly police officers (and their children) know how to call 911. ”

Last I looked, police officers also know how to gather evidence on people, arrest them and apply force (including lethal force) when said people aren’t cooperating with the arrest procedure. And their friends and relatives have more direct methods for contacting them than 911. Have enough cops and acquaintances thereof applying these methods in a given neighborhood over time and the hotheads and glory seekers will necessarily end up dead or in the hospital and the smarter criminals will be forced to adapt or find a new line of work.

“Unless you are arguing for an extralegal militia of criminals in police uniforms, who would be able to defend themsevles and their families. )”
The only time a militia would be needed is in the worst-case scenario of one or more of the local criminal gangs deciding to mount an assault on the workers, their families and allies. The rest of the time, a quite legal Neighborhood Watch program would suffice.

You’ve pointed out problems with worst-case scenario thinking twice and we’re going around in circles. I’m dropping this part of the debate.

Thank you for your comment.

So the children of teachers, social workers, police officers and firefighters DON’T skew that way?

They do (at least, compared to ghetto dwellers), but that’s irrelevent to your point here.

Because if they do, then you’re back where you started. This particular possible negative effect is a possibility with any means of improving the lives of people in bad neighborhoods

Again, you are creating an equivalency only by judging policies by their worst possible effects. This is not a valid way forward.

Umm, it also includes police officers who’re currently thin on the ground in a lot of these places.

Certainly police officers (and their children) know how to call 911.

Still, assuming a high-crime environment, this is much less a deterrent than slashing someone across the neck, and being willing to take the 5-10 year prison sentence that comes from this.

(Unless you are arguing for an extralegal militia of criminals in police uniforms, who would be able to defend themsevles and their families. )

Unless you are arguing that your plan will grant this sort of immunity to police officers, landlords and their families, etc., it provides no help to you here.

You are not able to demonstrate any of your claims.

Thank you for pointing that out:P

“As I mentioned previously, education skews toward “middle class values,” socio-economic status, intelligence, etc. So those who get out of the ghetto because of education tend to be better-behaved than those who do not. Their relatives likewise will skew higher (as those traits are heritable).”

So the children of teachers, social workers, police officers and firefighters DON’T skew that way? Because if they do, then you’re back where you started. This particular possible negative effect is a possibility with any means of improving the lives of people in bad neighborhoods. And I do mean ‘any’ because a cure for genetic or epigenetic sources of low intelligence or self-control would still leave cultural and other non-hereditary environmental sources to deal with.

“The “community of people with a greater ability to do something” about rape in ghetto-like conditions are low SES thugs capable of honor violence and honor killings [1,2]. That is, a person with middle class values and an affection for the criminal justice system is much less able to protect loved ones in high crime situations than someone who does not mind going to jail for several years in order to slash the throat of the man who raped his sister.”

Umm, it also includes police officers who’re currently thin on the ground in a lot of these places.