The optimum is never zero. Not because we like murder and rape as a society, but because we don't know how to make it zero and broad attempts to bring it closer to zero significantly limit our freedoms and worsen our society. Of course it sounds horrible if you're the victim of a rape (and I guess it would be terrible as a murder victim if you weren't, well, dead) that we accept a baseline level of crime as optimal but the fact is that the best way to get rid of rape is to prevent people from having sex. This is an extremely unpopular proposition and it is actually unlikely to be effective anyways, because wanting to have sex is far more desirable than wanting to rape people, and making crimes illegal doesn't actually prevent them from happening.
There are a number of less extreme suggestions that you actually probably hold (more policing, stronger sentencing, etc.) that people actually do support and are not obviously dead in the water but they have the same tradeoffs on a smaller scale. Do we accept, as a society, less crime that also makes it more likely that you will be mistakenly identified as a criminal? Should we funnel more money towards crime prevention instead of, say, healthcare? Going "we cannot tolerate any crime" sounds great but the optimal amount of crime will always be nonzero.
You are torturing the word optimal so I think it is meaningless to discuss that feature.
I also reject your view that everything is social tradeoffs. I think it is a extremely narrow perspective that completely ignores culture, norms, and behavior.
That’s literally what it means in this context. Apple puts up with some amount of crime because doing so is optimal for them. Driving crime to zero would cost them more money than it would save.
It is the best option of those available to apple.
That doesnt mean it is the best solution theoretically possible.
If I threatened you with the choice between death and paying me money you would probably choose the money. However, surely you think it would be better not to be threatened at all.
I think it is extremely closeminded to think that there is nothing that nothing else could be changed outside of apples control.
It is absurd to think that this is the optimal configuration of society and culture.
I think there are lots of preferable situations. The simplest and best is probably if theft was simply viewed as a personal moral failing and looked down on. This is reinforced by shaming and is how it works in high trust societies.
Other options include making sure people have enough success that they have something material to lose from getting caught stealing.
Despite agreeing with you in broad strokes I still don't see this being completely feasible. We should obviously strive for a society where people don't need to steal and don't feel compelled to steal either. That said, even in a much better situation there will still be someone who does it. At some point you really do have to go "investing more resources into this is not productive for society".
There are a number of less extreme suggestions that you actually probably hold (more policing, stronger sentencing, etc.) that people actually do support and are not obviously dead in the water but they have the same tradeoffs on a smaller scale. Do we accept, as a society, less crime that also makes it more likely that you will be mistakenly identified as a criminal? Should we funnel more money towards crime prevention instead of, say, healthcare? Going "we cannot tolerate any crime" sounds great but the optimal amount of crime will always be nonzero.