Okay, so let's say someone tries to rape my wife in a non-police state. I attack him in defense. He claims I tried to rape his wife instead. Without police, who is going to investigate? If the investigation is done by "peers", who said those peers aren't corrupt? I guess the real purpose of a police state is to keep everyone from being subject to corruption (ironic that it does exactly the opposite)
There would be investigators. They might even wear blue costumes. They just wouldn't have a monopoly on the job.
Seems to me that would create conflicts of interest.
"Our investigators said the cause of the problem was A, your investigators said B, and these guys over here paid their investigators to say it was C"
Who's the judge that will decide who is lying and just being paid to lie? When he decides, who will enforce his ruling or is his judgement (if there even is a judge) just for informational purposes only, like the bitcoin police?