Most land is already "lawless". You could say 99%. Even the land smack dab in the middle of the most lawful regions (inner city) still operate in what could be called lawlessness.
Most of the land is not lawless. Pretty much everywhere I go I can safely assume that people won't just do whatever the fuck they want whenever they want and the main reason is the law and the enforcement of it. They may do what they can get away with, but surely that just goes to show the effect of the police and not the law. I know lots of people who break the law, sure, me included, but everywhere I go is is pretty safe from violence and theft. The places it isn't are the places people think they can get away with it.

Is it not a head-scratcher that the places with the most violence are the places owned and regulated by the government (public streets)?
This is a really retarded comment. The reason most violence happens on the street is it's the one place where lots of people meet and isn't tightly controlled by law enforcement via cameras or security. The alternative to the streets is private property, which is either tightly controlled with some form of security (say a football stadium) or a small locked away space (say a home). This is an argument for more policing not less.

If we take the example Renton gave of using a system similar to insurance, it fails miserably (imo).

Let's imagine that for a minute. The likes of you and I would have a reasonable amount of policing which we'd be willing to pay for. The likes of, say Ongbonga (a self confessed bum with little income) would have practically none. So what if he lives with you and I as neighbors and there are some people on the street outside smashing shit up like cars or w/e (apparently we don't have private parking). I'd call the police, as would you, as we both pay for it, and they'd come along and..... what exactly? Are they ok to smash shit up between our houses and outside Ong's? Or does Ong get some free policing? Because realistically we need these thugs arrested, even if they've only smashed shit outside Ong's house, our cars could be next and these guys blatantly don't care for other peoples property.

But realistically it won't work like this because a) it isn't a practical way of doing it. b) Ong wouldn't live near us in this example and c) because it would probably be a case that people with similar incomes and similarly affordable houses would live in a community whereby to live on this street you have to pay insurance so we know our street s protected. Have to pay insurance? Heh, just to live on our street. And what if you don't? Would our security come along and turf you out? Almost sounds like the government we've just done away with.

But forgetting the turfing out thing, there would be areas full of people who all agreed to a certain level of insurance/policing/security and other areas where people don't. ie ghettos and fortresses. I also imagine the decent jobs would be within the fortresses and fuck all would be in the ghettos. I would imagine that based on the status quo blacks and Hispanics would populate the ghettos where there is no law and order and white middle class+ folk would populate the fortresses.

So to clarify, if policing and law enforcement is supplied on a person by person basis you'd have a huge free loader problem, which would lead to common agreements between like minded people agreeing for their area to have x amount of policing which would lead to a huge disparity between the level of law enforcement in different areas and in turn wealth as the security will follow the money.

Private provision of law enforcement is basically saying fuck the poor even more than we already do. Kiss goodbye to social mobility and give the rich a large private armed force. And where do you think the law makers will live?