Your question is its own answer, for therein you reveal the two fallacies that cause right-libertarians to mistake authority for liberty: the homesteading principle and the homesteading hypothesis.
The homesteading principle is of course the demand that, when one improves, encloses, or otherwise rubs an avaricious scent on land, others be permanently obliged to respect one's sovereignty over the realm thereby defined. Originally, the homesteading principle was based on the faulty, labor theory of land value, by which property could emerge by the reciprocated consent of those governed by it and thus ultimately be libertarian; however, modern right-libertarians have retreated it to the axiomatic level, where it is safe against reason entirely.
The homesteading hypothesis, on the other hand, is the assumption that homesteading is indeed the origin of property. Unlike the homesteading principle, the homesteading hypothesis doesn't command right-libertarians' constant faith. When pressed, any right-libertarian with at least a high school education will admit that the true origin of property is conquest, shrug it off as the past being past (as if we were the ones who brought up history in the first place!), and then, the minute you give their defining amnesia half a chance, return to mythology as in the "simplest example" (as if homesteading were distinguished by its simplicity and not its unreality) above.
