>I just get the distinct impression that many people have got no real idea about the threat that crime poses to the prosperity of a community
I can't disagree more strongly.
>... and the effort that is required to keep it in check
This I agree with. But this is a weak argument against people who live with a constant background, and sometimes foreground, fear for their lives from their own government.
The price of not having police is the constant and imminent danger and cost of crime. We all have to avoid certain parts of our cities. Women can’t walk safely at night even in the “safe” parts. Children can’t be left unattended. Public goods are ruined by vandalism. The stabilising effect of family households is lost as many flee to safer locations. Property values languish. Nobody can invest in the area, lenders and insurers aren’t interested. Innocent people are brutalised and they can’t rely on the police to protect them. Violent criminals operate with impunity. These aren’t isolated incidents, this is a trend of misery.
And this will be the legacy of many of these BLM protests/riots. More misery heaped on the poorest communities. That’s why I say that many people seem to have no real idea about the trade-off.
> The price of not having police is the constant and imminent danger and cost of crime. We all have to avoid certain parts of our cities. Women can’t walk safely at night even in the “safe” parts.
And yet many countries don't have police forces that are pathologically violent, and don't have no-go zones in their cities.
Whatever your politics are, you can't begin to understand crime and policing in the US until you internalize those numbers.
What's the going conversion rate on that? How many thefts should we expect the police to prevent for every person we allow them to rough up?
We can live in a society where police are held accountable for their actions and where they do their job. Pretending otherwise is a false dichotomy.