A similar analogy, but one with an entirely different outcome could be having a lock on your door or not having one. If you don't have a lock on your door, you'll probably get away with it for a while, but eventually you'll be burgled.
I just don't buy that lacking some form of security dooms you to whatever penalties the security may have protected against, if indeed any.
Yes. Criminals are oddly enough generally pretty good at cost-benefit analysis. At least in the short term.
I still feel wronged (it's a little annoying) but I still don't lock my doors (the amortized cost seems to be about $15/year where I tend to park. It's 99% about the time/money trade-off and 1% about what's morally right.