Who shall enforce the laws if not the police?
There are a number of ways to answer this.
Firstly the position you are arguing from is a very weak one. Who determines that there ought to be a group of people called "the police"? The "governers". And who determines that there ought to be "governers"? A piece of paper called a "constitution" which is a legally invalid document (i.e. it is not a contract or other form of agreement, and does not establish any facts -- would not even be admissible as evidence in an unfamiliar court. If you don't believe me, draft a constitution for your own house based on the US constitution and try to present it as evidence in *any* court which applies common law rules of evidence.)
So already you're starting with the problem of "who picks the police", "who picks the people who pick the police" and "who picks the 'laws' the police to should enforce?" And your answer to all three is inevitably some subgroup (or, more commonly, special interest group) from the community.
Now, to address the argument proper, we may take a look at the real law -- that is: the common law. Common law or case law is the law discovered and inferred by judges; who are professionals who specialize in adjudication and research in the science of politics [philosophic sense of the term]. Judges today mostly hold "government" jobs, but there are numerous instances of private judges who are as good or better than "government" judges. (Judge Judy is a popular example.)
At common law, the police have no special powers. That is, anyone may grab a malefactor and bring him before a court and have him charged. All human beings may act as "the police", and this, if you think about it, is what you would wish people still did today, because there are a lot more honest people walking around in an everyday crowd than there are honest police.
To read about the history of common law arrest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest
So the answer, quite simply, is you.
As a side note, what we are doing here, in debating the law, and effectively differentiating social (lawful) behaviour from anti-social (unlawful) behaviour, is a part of this same "citizens arrest" process.
If everyone took the law into their own hands gangs and large family's would pillage and rape the smaller households for their wealth, Would that be a better world/society.
I'm glad you brought this up; I was about to elaborate on it anyway.
It is true that most people are ignorant of philosophy, and therefore ignorant of what the law ought to be in order that it be just. To remedy this we already have, under the division of labour, a number of professional classes of person: law scholars (researchers) and law adjudicators (practitioners). They are today called: barrister, solicitor, accountant and judge. These professional classes are not different conceptually to say medicine, wherein you have medical scholars (researchers) and medical practitioners (doctors).
Returning to our first point above we find that our only remaining problem with people taking "the law into their own hands" is that these people are ignorant of the law. So why not have them bring the situation before an expert in the law? Today the answer is simple: like all "government" services, the courts are inefficient and wasteful, and won't even service the general public, but in a free society this would not be the case, and you would no more expect a queue to see a judge than you would expect a queue to buy a box of chocolates.
Cause we know these things happen in such countries, similar to these conditions.
You're going to have to be specific. Every "country" has its specific problems, and broad generalizations (particularly in terms of how "free" such and such a place is) are almost always completely incorrect.
In fact I want to see evidence when you post your specific cases.
