Yeah, thanks for the light reading assignment. JFC, I thought my Philosophy 101 textbook was a dry read, but that particular section of the document is on another level.

Here's the relevant information that you can just copy/paste for the next person who asks:

This system could be based around a voluntary militia, in which all members of the community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made up of local people who would join for short periods of time and be replaced if they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that a communal militia would become corrupted by power, like the current police force or a private security firm exercising a policing function, would be vastly reduced. Moreover, by accustoming a population to intervene in anti-social as part of the militia, they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it, so reducing the need for its services even more.

That's your answer. It's nebulous. It doesn't address the resources needed for more complicated cases. It's seems workable on a desert island, but it's woefully inadequate for the modern day. Your murderer flees in a car with no license plates. How are you going to track him down? How are internal investigations carried out?

IMHO, anarchism has a real problem addressing how to get from HERE to THERE. How does one decentralize a world that runs on centralized systems? Especially when so many people like those systems and enjoy the benefits despite the flaws.