Folly, your understanding of human nature and how civil order pertains to the functioning of modern society is so naive and fantasy-based as to seem at first blush to be beyond the ability of words and reason to rectify. I, however, being the eternal optimist, am willing to give it a try.
If I understand you correctly, you say that you obey the law because that's what's right, and if that's true, you are to be commended. That's known as "voluntary compliance", and it's what keeps people stopping at red lights when no one is around to catch them doing otherwise, for example. In our everyday lives, voluntary compliance is a big part of what holds society together because in reality, if enough people decide they are going to break the law (the "safety in numbers" concept), there aren't enough law enforcement officers available to prevent it (see: the LA riots of the early '90s).
Voluntary compliance is a fragile thing, though, and it's held together by the threat, either perceived or real, of unpleasant consequences for those who violate the law. If there was an absolute assurance of no negative consequences for violators, how long do you think voluntary compliance would last? In the example of the red light, maybe at first some people (the "because it's what's right" people) would still stop for red lights, but those numbers would quickly erode and they would rapidly became the minority. Of course, if there was suddenly no law enforcement, you wouldn't dare venture out in an automobile anyway (ask Reginald Denny, et al), but the point is illustrative.
Your claim that law enforcement doesn't prevent crime, that it only responds to it, reflects such a fundamental lack of understanding of the criminal justice system it's hard to know where to begin. The fact is, police regularly, each and every day, prevent crime both directly and indirectly. Is it your contention that no officer has ever driven by a house or a business and saw a crime in progress and stopped it? That no officer ever received a tip from an informant that something was "going down", and used that information to catch the bad actors red-handed? That police have never stopped someone on a "routine" traffic violation and noticed items in the car, for example, that led to the arrest of the bad actors inside? Is it your belief that those reports the police compile from the scene of crimes already committed are then shredded, or is it possible that they compile those reports and evidence collected at crime scenes to look for patterns and evidence that points to the perpetrators? Is it possible they use that information to build a case, and then go out and arrested the suspect(s)?
In fact, it happens every day, in every jurisdiction. The criminal courts are filled with cases put together this way, and if for some reason you don't grasp that concept, you need to spend some time down at your nearest courthouse (especially a big city or county courthouse). Sit in on arraignments or trials, and listen to the parade of cases and how those people were caught.
Furthermore, unless it's your belief that each and every one of those suspects had committed the last crime that they would ever have otherwise committed before they were arrested, then it logically follows that their arrest has, by definition, prevented other crimes.
Your professed non-belief in the concept of the threat of apprehension being a deterrent for many would-be criminals is also laughably naive. I'm not sure how someone could live among other humans beings and be that sheltered. Yes, some people like yourself do what's right based on principle, but many, maybe even most people are not like that, especially if the threat of punishment was completely removed.
The sad fact is, there are a lot of human beings out there who are flat-out, cold-blooded animals, both running loose on the streets and in the jails and prisons across the country (and remember, those people would be running loose, too, in your seemingly Utopian world of no law enforcement). For some, the threat of prison (or worse) isn't enough to deter them, and they eventually end up incarcerated or dead. For others, however, the specter of spending time in prison (or going back) is enough to dissuade them from being too out of control. Remove that threat, and add the safety-in-numbers element, and the resulting effect on modern society would be obvious to most people.
You also somehow fail to see how closely traffic enforcement is intertwined with crime prevention. Aside from the sheer societal benefits of traffic law enforcement (which we'll leave aside for now) Is it your belief that criminals don't drive automobiles? Are you completely unaware of how many criminals are caught on a daily basis in so-called "routine" traffic stops? The fact is, a surprising number of routine stops result in criminal apprehension or the recovery of stolen property, not to mention the apprehension of those driving without licenses, under suspension, without insurance, with outstanding warrants, etc. This is aside from the sheer deterrent effect that active and visible law enforcement has on other possible crime in the area.
If you are really interested in educating yourself on this issue, in addition to the above suggestion of sitting in on criminal proceedings down at your local courthouse or scheduling a ride-along with law enforcement (particularly in an active urban environment), I would suggest some reading on the history and evolution of civilian law enforcement. It is especially interesting how the amazingly recent advent of modern civilian law enforcement has coincided with the blossoming of the middle class in the capitalist, consumer western society. (Hint - it would be tough to go to work and build a career for yourself and a reasonably safe, comfortable life for your family if you couldn't leave them, your home, or your business unguarded. Hence the more common, pre-modern law enforcement societal formations of the Haves - those who were wealthy enough to live in fortified compounds with their own personal guards - and the Have-nots - those who could accumulate no more food or personal possessions than they could personally guard and prevent someone else from taking.)
Good luck with your enlightenment.
