@Jamal maybe you can kick this off.

In other words, there seems to be a hierarchy of accountability in societies based on factors such as wealth, class, culture, etc. that feeds into larger issues surrounding how agency is treated. — schopenhauer1

The rich guys neighbors are rich guys too. They feel entitled to complain about disruptive factors where they live. Poor guys won't complain because it won't do any good and they've got bigger problems.

Hmm. So if it’s you (or a loved one) who gets bitten by the poor guy’s dog, do you say, “mea culpa”?

I want to talk about agency and how it manifests in society. — schopenhauer1

In places like TPF, there are hard determinists who claim we do not have agency--physics is the law. Their opposites claim we have free will and executive agency. My position is that we have a fair degree of agency but free will is limited. Our behavior is subject to numerous determinants of variable strength.

Politics is one of the determinants of how we judge other people's agency. A conservative is more likely to credit individuals with agency: they are well off because they earned it -- they were enterprising, clever, thrifty, etc. The poor are badly off because they are slovenly, lazy, stupid, and wastrels. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to attribute their good fortune to beneficial environments, and to explain poverty by attributing to the poor harmful environments.

Neither the rich nor the poor got the way they are strictly on their own merits. The way in which society is organized has a lot to do with success and failure. Peter Turchin (End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration) describes "the wealth pump" which are the various means by which the rich extract wealth from the working class and concentrate it among themselves. Over time, the working class is immiserated, and more and more people end up on the very low end of the distribution -- destitute.

Sorry, got to go to an appointment (old guys' lunch date); more later.

In other words, there seems to be a hierarchy of accountability in societies based on factors such as wealth, class, culture, etc. that feeds into larger issues surrounding how agency is treated

-schopenhauer1

I believe that it is unreasonable to hold different parts of the same metro area to different standards. This is because standards are ideals that should be strived for, or a threshold that should ensure a specific quality of living.

In the case you describe of the wealthy man being punished for his dog being off a leash, without tags or collar and biting a person, the standard is a threshold. Those who do not meet that threshold, either by conscious or unconscious negligence, are reprimanded by the community until they either meet the threshold or leave the community.

In the second case of the poor man's dog biting a person, the standard is still a threshold, but it is one that the community should help their members meet. The line of thinking that you presented "they have no agency because they are poor, it's their culture, while not being good, they aren't bad" is a line of thinking that absolves that standard in an act of misguided mercy. The problem with this absolution is that others ask, rightfully so, "why them and not me?"

This leads to a series of cause and effects in which the area devolves into your described setting. Rather than remove the standards, the community in this situation should be helping the individual meet the standard. Granted, not every community can take on those responsibilities and may need help from outside area, but the effort should be made to ensure the standards to prevent such situations.

A conservative is more likely to credit individuals with agency: they are well off because they earned it -- they were enterprising, clever, thrifty, etc. The poor are badly off because they are slovenly, lazy, stupid, and wastrels. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to attribute their good fortune to beneficial environments, and to explain poverty by attributing to the poor harmful environments. — BC

So I think this is a bit of a red herring or straw man. Or perhaps it is just framed in a way that is too black-and-white. Rather, can there not be a minimum threshold and a supererogatory threshold?

The "minimum threshold" would be something akin to the idea that "if I or my property is liable to harm somebody, or cause significant damage or distress to others, I should avoid such scenarios".

"Supererogatory standard" would be ones that aren't about harm but might be considered nice to have by some people. You make some aesthetic improvement to your property or something. While it makes the neighborhood look better, that is very dependent on income and time. These are things that have less to do with common courtesy to fellow man, and more to do with lifestyle and preference (aka live and let live).

Shouldn't all people try to live by the "minimum threshold" and find ways to meet it? To not hold the "ghetto" areas to the minimum threshold is to actually perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, it is "othering" a significant segment of society to the point that they have no more agency than an animal or an inanimate object. Going back to the roaming dog, if you get bit by that dog, it would be odd to think of this as akin to a shark attack (wrong place, wrong time, just the universe and crazy natural processes). But some people might input this upon that scenario. Rather, someone wasn't just negligent (not a one time thing), but continually let their dog just roam around without a care. No attempt to keep them inside their property. That is an agent not meeting the minimum threshold. They don't need the newest fence, dog collar, lawn, doghouse for this, just enough to keep their furry friend protected and not a possible cause of tragedy. But this can be extended to a great number of things including the volume at which you play music, the time you play the loud music, not allowing yourself to litter obscenely or break glass bottles on sidewalks when done drinking, not parking your vehicle ON the sidewalk preventing people from walking, etc. Again, these aren't unobtainable for 99% of people. In fact, they are small actions and behaviors that have real effects on the surroundings.

This leads to a series of cause and effects in which the area devolves into your described setting. Rather than remove the standards, the community in this situation should be helping the individual meet the standard. Granted, not every community can take on those responsibilities and may need help from outside area, but the effort should be made to ensure the standards to prevent such situations. — Spencer Thurgood

Indeed, that's why I think it is important here to make a distinction between "minimum threshold" and "supererogatory threshold". See here:

The "minimum threshold" would be something akin to the idea that "if I or my property is liable to harm somebody, or cause significant damage or distress to others, I should avoid such scenarios".

"Supererogatory standard" would be ones that aren't about harm but might be considered nice to have by some people. You make some aesthetic improvement to your property or something. While it makes the neighborhood look better, that is very dependent on income and time. These are things that have less to do with common courtesy to fellow man, and more to do with lifestyle and preference (aka live and let live).

Shouldn't all people try to live by the "minimum threshold" and find ways to meet it? To not hold the "ghetto" areas to the minimum threshold is to actually perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, it is "othering" a significant segment of society to the point that they have no more agency than an animal or an inanimate object. Going back to the roaming dog, if you get bit by that dog, it would be odd to think of this as akin to a shark attack (wrong place, wrong time, just the universe and crazy natural processes). But some people might input this upon that scenario. Rather, someone wasn't just negligent (not a one time thing), but continually let their dog just roam around without a care. No attempt to keep them inside their property. That is an agent not meeting the minimum threshold. They don't need the newest fence, dog collar, lawn, doghouse for this, just enough to keep their furry friend protected and not a possible cause of tragedy. But this can be extended to a great number of things including the volume at which you play music, the time you play the loud music, not allowing yourself to litter obscenely or break glass bottles on sidewalks when done drinking, not parking your vehicle ON the sidewalk preventing people from walking, etc. Again, these aren't unobtainable for 99% of people. In fact, they are small actions and behaviors that have real effects on the surroundings. — schopenhauer1

The "minimum threshold" would be something akin to the idea that "if I or my property is liable to harm somebody, or cause significant damage or distress to others, I should avoid such scenarios".

"Supererogatory standard" would be ones that aren't about harm but might be considered nice to have by some people. You make some aesthetic improvement to your property or something. While it makes the neighborhood look better, that is very dependent on income and time. These are things that have less to do with common courtesy to fellow man, and more to do with lifestyle and preference (aka live and let live) — schopenhauer1

I had not heard the term Supererogatory standards before. If I am understanding it correctly, it would be actions that go above the "minimum threshold".

To connect it back to the scenario with the dog, the minimum threshold here would likely be that the dog can not bite people or other dogs. There would, of course, need to be a clause about self defense or protection of owner/property within that threshold. But it is generally agreed upon that a person's animal should not inflict harm on other people or their property.

Going above and beyond would be the collar, the tag, the fenced yard etc. as these are likely dependent on the persons ability to procure those items. In the "ghetto" for instance, the owner of the dog might not have the ability to fence their yard because they do not have a yard to fence. The same could possibly apply to the other items.

Going above and beyond would be the collar, the tag, the fenced yard etc. as these are likely dependent on the persons ability to procure those items. In the "ghetto" for instance, the owner of the dog might not have the ability to fence their yard because they do not have a yard to fence. The same could possibly apply to the other items. — Spencer Thurgood

Correct. If you can't keep the dog properly protected and contained, then that is not meeting the threshold. Yes, supererogatory is the concept that one is going beyond the minimum ethical standards. One can be ethical but not be supererogatory. For example, if someone is drowning and you have access to a floatation device and a cell phone, there are obligations. However, if they need help writing a cover letter and you don't want to help that might not be an obligation, but if you do help you are being supererogatory. Obviously, the line is pretty grey and up for various interpretations, but simply making that distinction at least helps define the lower end from the upper end. The devil is in the details, sure.

In other words, there seems to be a hierarchy of accountability in societies based on factors such as wealth, class, culture, etc. that feeds into larger issues surrounding how agency is treated. — schopenhauer1

And naturally of ownership and staus in the community. For starters, people behave differently to things and propertty if they a) own it, b) if they rent it or c) if it’s public property. Or if it’s not their property, do they know whose property it is.

Then come crucial things like do you feel part of the community or is the ”community” just rich assholes who hate you.

And naturally of ownership and staus in the community. For starters, people behave differently to things and propertty if they a) own it, b) if they rent it or c) if it’s public property. Or if it’s not their property, do they know whose property it is. — ssu

There's a correlation, but its not a fixed law. You break a glass bottle on public or someone else's property, the consequence is the same no matter what (a person or animal can get hurt walking on it). Obviously, breaking a glass bottle in a dumpster is already contained. Context matters. So it's context, not point of origin. That would be some sort of genetic fallacy special pleading fallacy in ethical application.

Then come crucial things like do you feel part of the community or is the ”community” just rich assholes who hate you. — ssu

I think this goes back to the distinction between supererogatory and minimum threshold of ethical standards:

The "minimum threshold" would be something akin to the idea that "if I or my property is liable to harm somebody, or cause significant damage or distress to others, I should avoid such scenarios".

"Supererogatory standard" would be ones that aren't about harm but might be considered nice to have by some people. You make some aesthetic improvement to your property or something. While it makes the neighborhood look better, that is very dependent on income and time. These are things that have less to do with common courtesy to fellow man, and more to do with lifestyle and preference (aka live and let live).

Shouldn't all people try to live by the "minimum threshold" and find ways to meet it? To not hold the "ghetto" areas to the minimum threshold is to actually perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, it is "othering" a significant segment of society to the point that they have no more agency than an animal or an inanimate object. Going back to the roaming dog, if you get bit by that dog, it would be odd to think of this as akin to a shark attack (wrong place, wrong time, just the universe and crazy natural processes). But some people might input this upon that scenario. Rather, someone wasn't just negligent (not a one time thing), but continually let their dog just roam around without a care. No attempt to keep them inside their property. That is an agent not meeting the minimum threshold. They don't need the newest fence, dog collar, lawn, doghouse for this, just enough to keep their furry friend protected and not a possible cause of tragedy. But this can be extended to a great number of things including the volume at which you play music, the time you play the loud music, not allowing yourself to litter obscenely or break glass bottles on sidewalks when done drinking, not parking your vehicle ON the sidewalk preventing people from walking, etc. Again, these aren't unobtainable for 99% of people. In fact, they are small actions and behaviors that have real effects on the surroundings. — schopenhauer1

Correct. If you can't keep the dog properly protected and contained, then that is not meeting the threshold. — schopenhauer1

It is definitely a grey area because the standard would be up to the person's ability and their ability to defend their decision in a court of law.

Personally, I would argue that the need to contain the dog would be dependent on the situation. For instance, if your animal has a history of aggression and you want to keep the animal, it could be argued that keeping the animal contained is necessary to prevent the dog from harming others.

If the dog does not have that history of aggression though, containing the animal might be viewed as going above the required threshold and so not be enforceable.

As you said, the devil, and I might add the fun, is in the details.

Personally, I would argue that the need to contain the dog would be dependent on the situation. For instance, if your animal has a history of aggression and you want to keep the animal, it could be argued that keeping the animal contained is necessary to prevent the dog from harming others.

If the dog does not have that history of aggression though, containing the animal might be viewed as going above the required threshold and so not be enforceable.

As you said, the devil, and I might add the fun, is in the details. — Spencer Thurgood

Sure, you can try to argue this or that exception. However, dogs are unpredictable when faced with various situations and assumptions shouldn't be made. A one time incident is different than deciding you aren't going to contain the dog because you "have a strong notion that my dog is super chill".

However, dogs are unpredictable when faced with various situations and assumptions shouldn't be made. — schopenhauer1

True, assumptions should not be made, but first hand information is an acceptable means of making an informed decision. Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule. A normally relaxed dog who has been socialized from an early age may still attack a person or another animal.

I am merely using the example of containing versus not containing as an example of supererogatory standards. The minimum threshold is generally that an owner should provide restitution for damages done by their animal in the case of the attack. It could therefore, be reasonably argued that things like containing the animal go above and beyond that threshold depending on the owner's ability and personal decision regarding their property.

It’s seems a simple case of double standards. One expects better or worse of people, so he holds them to differing standards. It’s another of the myriad problems with collectivist thinking. So-and-so is from this group, or this tax-bracket, or this identity, therefor we need to judge him accordingly.

It could therefore, be reasonably argued that things like containing the animal go above and beyond that threshold depending on the owner's ability and personal decision regarding their property. — Spencer Thurgood

This is venturing into picayunish/pedantic territory but no, it is doubtful that the law would be so individualized that it accounts for each person’s perceived notion of their dog. The dog attacking is a most-worst outcome of the broken rule of simply doing the minimum to physically contain the dog. Again there’s a difference between an accident (opening the door and dog flies out) and deciding your particular dog is a great exception and you don’t need to contain them as a daily thing.

It’s another of the myriad problems with collectivist thinking. So-and-so is from this group, or this tax-bracket, or this identity, therefor we need to judge him accordingly. — NOS4A2

It does turn into self fulfilling outcomes it seems. It’s also oddly denying certain people have agency.

his is venturing into picayunish/pedantic territory — schopenhauer1

I am not sure what you mean by "picayunish/pedantic territory".

I am not sure what you mean by "picayunish/pedantic territory". — Spencer Thurgood

It’s getting too in the weeds.

gotcha ya. We are straying off topic from your original post.

Supererogatory standard — schopenhauer1

I looked it up, but this is a totally new word to me. I believe in avoiding rare terms where common terms will serve as well.

Look, your thread title is "What makes a ghetto what it is?". In my book, the term "ghetto" requires poverty. A gated community of millionaires is a "ghetto" only in a satirical sense.

What makes ghettos is what makes people poor. The wealth pump extracts money from working people through reduced wages, reduced benefits, longer hours, inflation, and regressive taxes which penalizes working people much more heavily than rich people. The working class (90% of the population in the USA) is in a 50+ year period of gradual loss. Most working people are significantly poorer now than they were in 1970. The most unlucky working class people are now immiserated. They end up in dilapidated housing because they can not afford better. If they own their own home (which many working class people do) it may be becoming more dilapidated because they can not afford to maintain it.

People who are gradually forced down to the bottom don't just sink, they change on the way down. The milieu of poverty produces alienation and anomie. They do not feel a sense of belonging responsibility, shared community, and so on. They feel beaten, and they are. It is very difficult to get off the bottom once you land there.

How people PERCEIVE the ghetto and the people who live in it is where your conservative red herring and liberal straw men make their entry. Their opinions are relevant because effective political/economic/social intervention will, or will not occur based on one's ideology. The main response to ghettos is slum clearance -- just level them. The ghetto will then disperse and regather somewhere else, because the poor are still poor. Only their ratty, run-down, unsafe, unhealthy tenement has changed (it's now in a landfill). One response (more "liberal") is to replace the slum with nice but durable townhome units and select the residents from the ghetto carefully. Another, more cost conscious response is to replace the slum with "a ghetto in the sky" -- high-rise buildings filled without careful selection.

Ripe ghettos don't have a whole lot of community. There is too much transience, instability, unmet need, crime, etc. for people to bond with lots of other people. Poverty, isolation, anomie, and alienation again. Add cheap alcohol, and plentiful person-recking drugs, and you have a social sink added to the ghetto.

Circling back to the question of "agency": The only people connected with the ghetto who have real agency are the rich people (landlords, investors, real estate interests, speculators, building companies, etc.) who created the ghetto in the first place through very specific policies.

There are some great books on how people get fucked over in the ghetto:

Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City by Matthew Desmond is an excellent account of how landlords make money renting ghetto property to the poor.

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of how the Federal Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein. FHA and VA home loans programs created both the white suburbs (and contributed to white wealth) while, at the same time, concentrating poverty and denying opportunity in the inner city.

Several books about Detroit show how corporate policies and corrupt government turned Detroit from a really great city into the shit hole it is now.

Numerous books about the Chicago Housing Authority show how slum clearance and urban renewal ended up creating new, and worse, ghettos. Most of Chicago's ghettos in the sky have been torn down, replaced by housing for "nicer people". Many of the former high-rise residents received Section 8 housing vouchers. Whether and where they used the vouchers, how well it worked out, and where the former residents are now is mostly unknown.

All very good and useful information. HOWEVER, doesn't quite get at the rest of the OP. I worded the title to be a bit more general than the OP's question.

Basically the OP is asking whether there should be a different standard, and specifically a different minimum standard on "the ghetto" as if people living in a "ghetto" have absolutely no agency. At the end of the day, it is positing that actions aren't necessarily deterministic (as you said in your initial response). That it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy to treat people as only causal figures and not agential persons. So I explain it here:

If you are living in a ghetto part of town, near concrete structures of varying dinginess and decay, near known addicted and homeless populations (not families looking for temporary relief, but more chronic homeless), etc. if you walk by a house and the dog is off leash, no tags, and it starts barking and biting at you or other dogs, it's just "that's the way it is". The owner of said dog is said to have no agency. He/she is poor, it's his culture, etc. So while not being "good", the "person" is not bad, it is more causal, and less agential. The rich man with the poor decisions deserves the wrath, and the person living in the "poor" neighborhood is just doing what he does. It's "part of the conditions".

Is there muddled thinking here? Is there self-fulfilling thinking? Is it right to think this way even (the different standards)? Are parts of cities some intangible force obfuscated by class and cultures or is it individuals making decisions based on bad information? Or do they have bad information? For example, how ubiquitious in a Westernized country is it to know that dogs can bite people and or get mistreteated if left off the leash and allowed to just roam a neighborhood? Is it unreasonable to hold parts of the same metro area (suburbs plus inner city) to the same standards as others when it comes to these ideas? Or are the cultures too far apart for individual decision making to be a factor? Is this somehow inadvertantly classist or worse, in terms of who we deem able to be accountable? — schopenhauer1

Does being "considerate" to your neighbors transcend class? Can you have two families from the same culture and class in a "ghetto", one that doesn't have cars parked in the front lawn, dogs biting people, and music blasting into the night, and one that does? When is it just "the way it is" versus, "that person is being a nuisance and is harmful"? When does behavior ever transcend class or background? — schopenhauer1

And whilst you have given a thorough response to some of the causes of the impoverished areas, it doesn't quite get at this idea of whether it is right or even appropriate to treat segments of the population with different standards.

Here is how I define the minimum standard again (not supererogatory, your favorite word..that can be for the rich man perhaps):

The "minimum threshold" would be something akin to the idea that "if I or my property is liable to harm somebody, or cause significant damage or distress to others, I should avoid such scenarios". — schopenhauer1

So it's not "broken windows" theory but broken bottles theory. It would almost be helpful if you parsed my questions out individually and answered that way to get more directly at it. Or not. But just seeing if I can direct the conversation to those questions.

Some standards can be applied to anyone, without respect to their wealth or poverty, residence in a $1,000,00 - $5,000,000 per home suburb, or stinking ghetto. I suppose one could apply Kant's Universal Imperative or the Golden Rule to anyone. Neither gilded suburbanites nor ghetto dwellers should engage in drive-by shootings, frivolous lawsuits, DIY justice, bribery of private school personnel, rape, public drug use, failure to recycle their empty fine wine bottles, or public drunkenness. That dog? keep it on a leash or inside a fenced yard. Throwing beer bottles into the street? Not acceptable anywhere.

it seems like people do maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior -- or even aimed for more than that -- because even in a ghetto, people have to interact in an orderly manner to accomplish their goals -- whether that goal is drug dealing, fencing catalytic converters, getting children to school, or scrounging for food,

Do people in gilded suburbs maintain a minimum standard of behavior or better? Or, are they as likely to be inconsiderate, noisy, bad neighbors, and so on? I have little contact with gilded suburbanites, but from what I have read, they are as likely to behave badly as anybody else, but will maintain a veneer of nice behavior. If they are going to shoot you, they probably won't call you a motherfucking bitch first. Or, maybe they like ghetto slang -- I wouldn't know. They probably will take care of their purebred dog, but might sue you for painting your house an inappropriate shade of beige, thus lowering their property value. If you up-stage them in status display, you might be snubbed at the country club.

So, minimum standards are an issue in the gilded suburbs, but the 'level' is higher. There are rules. Violation is verboten.

The neighborhood I live in ranges from stable working class to professional working class, with more upscale people living along the Mississippi River. About 10,000 people live in this neighborhood. Most of the housing is modest single family bungalows with small yards. It's a solid Democratic area. Most people maintain their property reasonably well. Off-leash dogs are a rarity. More objectionable is people not picking up their dog's shit. Driving too fast on residential streets is a problem. Lots of people display "20 is plenty" signs -- drive at 20 mph on most residential streets (it's the law). I'd say there is a consensus about what is minimum acceptable behavior here.

The kind of behavior one sees in 'ghetto' areas -- like noisier, messier partying involving large numbers of people would not be considered acceptable around here. A large party is possible, but quiet, neat, and orderly, please.

Some standards can be applied to anyone, without respect to their wealth or poverty, residence in a $1,000,00 - $5,000,000 per home suburb, or stinking ghetto. — BC

Agreed.

Neither gilded suburbanites nor ghetto dwellers should engage in drive-by shootings, frivolous lawsuits, DIY justice, bribery of private school personnel, rape, public drug use, failure to recycle their empty fine wine bottles, or public drunkenness. That dog? keep it on a leash or inside a fenced yard. Throwing beer bottles into the street? Not acceptable anywhere. — BC

Agreed

it seems like people do maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior -- or even aimed for more than that -- because even in a ghetto, people have to interact in an orderly manner to accomplish their goals -- whether that goal is drug dealing, fencing catalytic converters, getting children to school, or scrounging for food, — BC

Indeed, the problems come down to various levels of tolerance for discomfort caused by other people. There are unfortunately plenty of people who don't mind roaming dogs biting them and do look at it as if it's just a part of being in a neighborhood. There are unfortunately plenty of people who wouldn't mind various forms of music playing at 3am at night and just chalk it up to that's how it is in a neighborhood. These wildly varying ideas of discomfort are why more affluent neighborhoods form HOA's which jack up prices and create ridiculous laws. However, that's the other extreme. What amazes me is the fact that there could be such variation in people's tolerances. A collective majority of tolerances to discomfort creates a situation where the "norm" is pretty uncomfortable. You can then psychologize why, etc. But it seems one can argue that the minimum standard is simply not universal. Not sure how to go from there. There is something wrong with thinking that it's okay for other people's dogs to roam around and such. One person's big deal is another person's "What's the problem, mister?".

Do people in gilded suburbs maintain a minimum standard of behavior or better? Or, are they as likely to be inconsiderate, noisy, bad neighbors, and so on? I have little contact with gilded suburbanites, but from what I have read, they are as likely to behave badly as anybody else, but will maintain a veneer of nice behavior. If they are going to shoot you, they probably won't call you a motherfucking bitch first. Or, maybe they like ghetto slang -- I wouldn't know. — BC

Absolutely, no gilded suburbanites are a hairs width away of scratching that veneer and many would cause havoc at the drop of a hat without their overpriced HOA's. Where the ghetto mindset might be indifference and unmitigated tolerance of discomfort, the richer neighborhoods have unmitigated privilege in their expectations and will throw their monkey feces because their pickleball court is being used as a tennis court.

The neighborhood I live in ranges from stable working class to professional working class, with more upscale people living along the Mississippi River. About 10,000 people live in this neighborhood. Most of the housing is modest single family bungalows with small yards. It's a solid Democratic area. Most people maintain their property reasonably well. Off-leash dogs are a rarity. More objectionable is people not picking up their dog's shit. Driving too fast on residential streets is a problem. Lots of people display "20 is plenty" signs -- drive at 20 mph on most residential streets (it's the law). I'd say there is a consensus about what is minimum acceptable behavior here. — BC

Indeed, and none of that would matter in certain neighborhoods of less affluence (aka the more "ghetto" areas).

The kind of behavior one sees in 'ghetto' areas -- like noisier, messier partying involving large numbers of people would not be considered acceptable around here. A large party is possible, but quiet, neat, and orderly, please. — BC

So I guess the "minimum" is just not universal enough to be a self-enforced thing. Not sure what that means that the same 20 mile metropolitan area can be so varied in expectations of the minimum. The strawman or the red herring would be to pretend I am talking about the supererogatory standard, like people have to paint their houses or keep a neat lawn or something. Nope. Just the minimum idea of don't do things harmful or distressing to others. For example, it's not great to break bottles on sidewalks that children and dogs walk on, or leave tons of garbage out on the side of the street unnecessarily for long periods of time.

Indeed, the problems come down to various levels of tolerance for discomfort caused by other people. — schopenhauer1

I am not confident that this description is realistic, my doubt hingeing on the word "tolerance".

There are unfortunately plenty of people who don't mind roaming dogs biting them and do look at it as if it's just a part of being in a neighborhood. — schopenhauer1

I doubt that very much. They DO mind, even in the ghetto; they don't "tolerate it" - they have to
"endure it". Bad environments (ghettos, homeless encampments, poverty-ridden rural areas, deteriorating public housing, etc.) are the cause of long-term stress-induced disease patterns. In other words, living in very bad environments makes one sick and drives one crazy.

Even bad work environments (evil bosses, bad co-workers, unhealthy working conditions, various things) are stress inducing and can erode physical and mental functioning. Workers aren't at all indifferent to these conditions, it just that IF that is where they are, they have to put up with it.

An example: in Chicago's Public Housing, places like the huge Robert Taylor Homes or Cabrini Green, many residents did resist the social and physical deterioration that was degrading these places. They tried to get repairs made, they tried to limit the effects of negative behavior in the buildings.

What killed these places was Chicago Public Housing policies, like allowing a very high ratio of children to adults. This might be somewhat tolerable when the children are little, but when the children grow into teenagers, the ratio becomes unbearable -- the teen-age children take over with very bad results.

Why did adults stay there until everyone was evicted and the buildings dynamited? They had no choice. Poor people don't have a lot of choices. What is one of the main health differences between reasonably well off people and decidedly poor people? Unavoidable chronic stress.

Who had the most agency with respect to the Chicago Housing Authority? In first place was the federal government which established funding and various requirements. Next in line was the Chicago City Council, which had control over certain aspects of CHA. Third in line was CHA, which had to abide by the requirements and limitations other agencies placed upon them. Fourth in line were the various community groups that did not want CHA buildings anywhere near them.

The residents in CHA buildings were at the bottom of the agency and autonomy list, They had no agency with respect to operation of their neighborhood. However, CHA always had waiting lists of people who needed housing and were willing (even anxious) to live there. It wasn't that it was so great: it was that other options were so bad.

The thing about ghettos (from the medieval Jewish ghettos in Italy where the name came from) to your average American ghetto is that living in them is no body's first choice. People are forced to live in ghettos, either by police force (the Warsaw Ghetto) or by social/economic force: it's the only place available. Where would poor people like to live? They would like to live in a nice house/apartment in a quiet, leafy neighborhood with little crime, clean streets, decent schools, parks, good stores nearby -- super markets, drug stores, Target, aldi, etc. Why don't they live there? a) they can't afford the rent in neighborhoods like that b) they won't BE or FEEL welcomed in such a neighborhood. So, they end up in noisy, dirty, high-crime ghettos with crappy schools, no near-by shopping or parks, etc.

other words, there seems to be a hierarchy of accountability in societies based on factors such as wealth, class, culture, etc. that feeds into larger issues surrounding how agency is treated. — schopenhauer1

There is one legal standard throughout a jurisdiction, meaning the same leash laws apply to the poor and the rich. That's why lady liberty wears a blindfold.

Obviously law enforcement occurs differently throughout the city. There is both the feeling that law enforcement under-enforces in the poor areas as to certain crimes and that it over-enforces as to others.

I suspect the disparities result from practical considerations, class issues, race, and politics.

In some neighborhoods they get mad when the trashcans stay out on the street too long. Others are trying to keep the needles out of the alleys.

Having worked in 'ghettos' and with people experiencing intergenerational poverty, my thoughts are that a society can set expectations about appropriate behaviour and expect most people to comply. That said, people are often 'rewired' by experiences of trauma, institutionalization and substance use and may effectively have brain damage and limitations to their cognition. They may not be able to assess consequences or even have access to empathy. But that would be a small group, within the cohort of people experiencing chronic disadvantage.

I've certainly had to ask people to muzzle dogs and keep them on a leash or no assistance will be forthcoming. In most cases people will accept this. I've also had to ask people to put machetes and clubs away while I am around. Particularly if it is pointed out clearly why this is necessary for safety or perceptions of safety. My experience is that people do change behavior and do learn and grow, regardless of their background.

One of the issues with ghettos is that they are manufactured - either by design as social housing, or as the result of how an economy works (slum formation, etc). What then tends to happen is people with lots of trauma and disadvantage (limited education, unemployment, family violence, AoD use, mental ill health) are bundled together in high concentrations. This in itself can create a milieu for complex and often antisocial behaviours. It's interesting how when people are rehoused in an 'ordinary home' away from a 'ghetto', the behaviours often change dramatically and they become house proud and highly social and considerate to others.