>>>Hi Nick,
>>>
>>>>I saw the scum village article and I think its a good idea(though badly named in the headline)
>>>> I sometimes see in the press here reports of problem families being evicted from social housing an always think that some poor person is going to have them moving in next door to them soon.
>>>> The idea of a special area where these failing families can be housed and controlled and maybe improved while not being a blight on ordinary neighbours has to be a reasonable one..
>>>
>>>I'm still blank on this one. Apparently in the far past this has been tried before without much success. You move problems from one area to another.
>>>
>>>OTOH, we've got areas in cities where you'd better not be, because of anti social behavior and crime. Taking out a few the rotten apples could improve the neighborhood. But putting all rotten apples together does not give any hope for those to better their lives.
>>
>>On the yet another hand, it would be interesting to see how would these villages prosper if they had autonomy instead of an appointed commissar. The trouble would then be if they were too successful there...
>
>Successful in what? Warfare, growing pot? Export n#1 would be crime I guess. But most likely they would kill eachother first.

Depending on what kind of incompatibility with their neighbors they have. If they are just plain criminal, then of course, they'd sooner or later start doing it amongst themselves. If they're just different, and annoyed their neighbors out of sheer frustration with the world that surrounds them, they might take this chance to build a community that fits their needs. But I guess the experiment isn't set that way, to give them a fresh start without much interference, so the outcome you describe is more likely.