Thousands of Africans immigrate to Israel every year. These immigrants come from a radically different culture. In Israel many of them commit crimes. The streets feel less secure than they felt before. Part of it is rational and based on crime statistics, and part of it is just the fear of the unknown.
In a free society private roads and neighborhoods will significantly decrease the friction, however this will require constant protection of all the islands of private property and the arteries that connect them. Such protection is quite ineffective comparing to protecting of an all encompassing border. Besides the mere fact that you know that a mile from you live people who envy your wealth and want to take it is quite unsettling.
Therefore if it was possible to homestead a large area and there to build cities, towns and roads, it would have made life safer and more peaceful. Alas, the libertarian homesteading principles do not allow it. How can then this issue be resolved in your opinion?
For solutions to the immediate problem of African Immigration into Israel, it looks to me as a subject of the government of the USA that Israel has a welfare state problem not an immigration problem. If Israel shutdown the welfare state handouts and goodies, all done through debt, then Israel would not only be much more prosperous they would eliminate the incentive for Africans to immigrate.
Of course this is exactly the same advice I give to my own government and it has not landed on listening ears.
As for homesteading, it requires the homesteader to do something with the property. Creating a buffer zone for one country or group of people against some other group is not improving to sustaining the property but stealing it in perputity from possible owners would would use the land for more production or sustainment.
I agree with Bogart's homesteading assesment.
Why wouldn't the invaders choose to assimilate and prosper rather than engage in crime? If the society is free, I suspect that the opportunity costs of crime would be high and people would rather work peacefully.
Are you proposing a large state-like claim or something smaller?
I propose something smaller, a country of sorts, maybe 20-30 towns, and a few cities.
In a free society the economic gaps will be huge, so I assume quite a lot of people from the lower echelon would be willing to take the risk to rob or steal. Now state borders to some degree separate rich and poor populations, but in a free society there will be a lot more proximity between different cultures, populations and classes.
"In a free society the economic gaps will be huge"
I don't agree at all. I think the opposite will be true. I think the super rich will mostly vanish and only super professionals will be at the top, like millionare actors and atheleties and best in each field of endevor.
I also think the free market will solve your secuiry problem. If a buffer between rich and poor is needed, it will be provided by middle class homesteaders who claim the land for their legitimate use.
I also don't agree that large areas of land are "easier to protect" than small ones. Practically speaking, not so. The problems of defense are related to the area being covered versus the number of people available to man the defense.
Also, you're talking two different issues. Crime is not a border-defense type of problem. Crime is an internal organization problem. There again, smaller communities regulate themselves more easily than large ones by virtue of the fact that it's easier to obtain 100% consent in a small group.
I'd like to add, too, that availability of resources is definitely a factor in defense, which is where larger land mass can be an advantage. But a small community should survive by its economic strength, thereby giving it both the means to acquire resources and also the connections with other communities that result in greater security for all via mutual aid.