That's an illusion created by an oversimplified theory uncorrected by physical reality. In the real, physical world, the creation of such communities necessarily involves aggression as soon as the percentage of racists on the landscape is anything but negligible.
It is not an illusion, because I have not said anything about the probability that such things will happen without aggression. Instead, I have given a moral clarification.
This is an important method to impose totalitarian orders. Behavior A may be completely unproblematic, under some well-defined circumstances. Namely, one should not do B to do A. Now iceaura observes that, somehow, one can expect (my personal experience!!!111! I have seen some guy doing B to do A!!!!11!!) that under some conditions A will often be done together with B. And, therefore, one has to forbid A.
The just law would be to forbid the aggression which, IYO, is "necessarily" involved (even if the condition when it is "necessarily" involved clarifies that it is not necessary at all). But not the creation of such gated communities. As a consequence, it becomes difficult to create such gated communities, given that aggression is forbidden. So what? Even if only a few of them will be created, they become attractive places for live of the most stupid racists, which decreases the percentage of rabid racists outside these communities.
Like I said: in the US we've seen this, the real thing. The voluntary racist gated community was - and is, btw - a common sight. They cannot be formed or maintained without violent subjugation and deprivation of the people belonging to the despised race. And once you see why and how that is, you can correct your theory to account for these basic physical facts - economic, geographic, demographic, psychological, political.
Nonsense. They can be formed as well as maintained without aggression. Which is not an empirical question at all, because it is about the possibility. A question very different from the question of the real history of their creation. All states have been created by war, means, by murdering people. Some anarchists use this as a decisive argument against the state. I'm not. But as far as I remember you support the state, that means, you have to reject this historical argument as sufficient to reject the state. But, then, similarly, you have to reject the historical argument against gated communities that some/most of them have been created using aggression.
So, what remains is if their maintenance requires aggression. Sorry, no. People of the wrong race are forbidden to enter the gated community. But all people are forbidden to enter private property without agreement of the owner. So, the argument makes sense only if the private property owned by the gated community is too large, so large that one should somehow forbid private ownership of land of that size in general.
But this makes no sense. Gated communities make sense in sufficiently small areas, much smaller than that of a big factory which is usually privately owned. A typical gated community can be a small dead-end street and all the buildings along the street, with a gate at the begin of the street. What would be the "aggression" necessary for maintenance of this gated community?
Actually, much more - there's more room inside and outside a State. Town by town, the elbow room inside and outside is much more cramped on a human scale - a landscape covered with sundown towns is much more oppressive than a landscape divided into a couple of large racial States, within which residents have freedom to travel etc. It's that scale thingy.
First of all, the people living there will find optimal sizes. The own flat is the minimal size, and even today open for every racist. The own house, the own street, the own quarter, the own village, the own town, the own county are other possibilities. It is better to create them in a compact way - this gives the racist more freedom to travel without the danger of meeting the wrong race. But to create big entities is also more difficult - much more people would have to move.
In the US, we had tens of thousands of them. All over the landscape. Including all the best land, best water sources, transportation routes and facilities, utilities and financial resources and so forth.
...
How about if some guy and his buddies own, as rich guys who bought it, all the significant resources (such as the arable land and water) of a State size region? If he's white, and racist?
So the point is simply to change ownership of these nice things, from those who have owned it in the past (as usual, by war) in favor of the poor? Fine, expel and kill all these whites, anyway they are despicable racists, and take their property. But simple robbery of property, even if it may in some cases be morally justified because of the history of its acquisition, is not justified by libertarian principles. You may argue that the way a particular property was acquired was unjust, and, therefore, the property claim unjustified. Then, the property has to be returned to the just owner. That's all. If the just owner appears to be a rich racist, you have to live with this.
Once again, as several times before: you don't know jack shit about racism in the US, and you will post nothing but goofy nonsense like that until you learn to quit talking about it.
I don't have to, once I talk about principles of justice. Libertarianism is about principles of justice. I don't have to know personally how stupid, evil and despicable actual American racists are, and how nice and lovely American black people are, once the principles of justice tell me that all people have equal rights.
All people having equal rights is, by the way, a liberal principle (European tradition), which is incompatible with any state support for whatever minorities.