[asymptosis]

> A lot more than a lack of violence is required in order for cooperation to be possible.

You predicated everything you said on the dangerousness of criminals. Now it seems like you're backpedalling.

Overall, your response shows a tendency towards hyperbole. How to manage crime is a complicated topic; you seem prone to catastrophising the worst, and this catastrophising leads to unrealistic conclusions like "let's pack them all away and make them a problem for some other country."

There are lots of things we would like to trust about people around us. Eg, we would like to trust that we can make mistakes in life and that there is a way to come back from those mistakes.

[rsj_hn]

No, I said "dangerous", not violent, and specifically those who are a threat to the public order. You interpreted that to mean only "violent", but I include arsonists, burglars, those who sexually assault, and those who steal pension funds as "dangerous to society", just as much as those who assault and kill.

This is completely obvious to most people. Others talk about "peaceful protests" when a city is burned to the ground and think there is some magical line that allows one to destroy a person's home and livelihood but as long as no one is punched, then it's OK and no prison time is needed.