"...indisputable right to life,...enjoy the product of his labor." Yes, if we assume this premise perhaps the rest of the arguement can be held, but judging by economies and social interactions of man, I would challenge that the premise itself is far from settled. And that is the way it seems to be in the libertarian view of things. Precepts that are attractive are not in large part fact. Lot's of ideals, problematic in implementation.
Seems from your POV we should rethink slavery. "Go pick my cotton BOY!"
Therein lay the problem with your premise is that all kinds of sins against man can be justified and history is loaded with them as well. I think we'll both agree there. At the same time, these sins against man are defended on the ideal that such dehumanizing of man is the cost we pay for the greater good. How far do we devolve to achieve this ultimate goodness? How far into hell itself must we penetrate to arrive at heaven?
Also your premise is also used by heirarchial societies in order to dominate others for their own purposes and in the case of class conflict, an upper heirarchy is able to dominate a lower order of persons. You fear this domination and rightly so and then go about supporting gov't in the belief that this order will protect you yet it works against you at every step. You are in effect the abused, raped spouse who refuses not only to leave but goes right back in everytime for more but yet expecting the abuser to change all on their own. Why should they?
I always found an instructive and thought provoking chapter from the old testament in
1 Samuel Chapter 8 in which the Israelite people were rejecting the localist gov't under the old "judges" system eg tribal society and demanded a King "like the other nations around us!" One can easily equate a very limited if not a totally de-centralized gov't under this older judge system and also it was a bit of a voluntary state although it did ascribe borders in what we see in the modern sense so it's a limited voluntary state if you will. However, the most interesting and instructive part is when Samuel goes to god eg Yahweh, Jehovah with the people's request, god's response as to what will come with it is most interesting, especially in today's Statist context.
As for the so-called "libertarian view of things" this is not a recent POV at all and has longstanding philosophical roots that actually go back to what one would call "left" traditions known of earlier times by the term classical liberal. There are much longer traditions here but the modern context is most effected by the more recent ideals. Even 19th century individualist/socialist like Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker held to the same individualist premise at their heart. In today's political clims. both men would be moreso in the left-libertarian if not libertatian socialist camps (if one is into genres) but understand that left and socialist in their day did not mean a complusary, authoritarian state flavor as these terms today reflect. Any organized structure was established on voluntary as well as mutualist ideals. The terms may be distasteful in today's use but in their day, socialist, mutualist were ideals born of liberty, freedom and free markets not complusary actions of organized states and societies.
Samuel E. Konkin III was a huge advocate of left libertarianism and he took anarcho-capitalism towards the left into market anarchism and what is now known as Agorism. Lysander Spooner, a 19th century anarchist and abolitionist is another 19th century man of the left and yet he advocated a no-state thought. Although a northerner from Boston and abolitionist, he openly defended the right of southern succession in countering the social contract theory as a legal binding contract on future generations beyond the founding generation. His work "Constitution of No Authority" was and still is a landmark work that in the 1980's when I read it pushed me at the time clearly into the Anti-Federalist camp and opened a door for later understanding.
Statists of all stripe do and have ascribed a type of morality and higher calling to the State as they IMO have accepted the Hobbesian view of social order and social contract theory. However, history itself again IMO is completely disproving the morality of the State and in fact the State itself is advocating a brutish morality of it's own and thus the moral question libertarians are raising is in fact the true faultline that is the dividing point from themselves to statists. Even within the so-called libertatian ranks is a divide between minarchism and anarchism or the idea of limited state verses no state. Minarchists want the best of both worlds and yet can't accept this position in time will come at a cost they aren't willing to pay. I understand as I been there, done that!
Regardless of how society decides to order itself beyond this point in time, if libertarians, individualist leftist and anarchist are right and that the State as we know it is immoral at it's core, where does that then leave statists who believe in the moral traditions? How do you proclaim yourself for freedom and liberty (most often on moral grounds) when in fact you support a culture that is rooted in pure force as a means to an end? Would a christian advocate satanism as a means to teach non-believers the truth of Jesus message? How do we justify this force for it's greater good and yet see it clearly for it core conflicts with morality? Would one justify killing another as a means to purify that person for heavenly acceptance or for that matter an earthly ideal? Democracy anyone? How are we then that much different from the radical jihadist at the end of the day who believe Sharia law is a means to an end not only in heaven but here on earth?
The purely political systems at the end of the day are meaningless and one political idealology over another are meaningless as well. All in due course can achieve an ultimate self image of some purity in the eyes of the people but what about the moral road it travels in getting there? Achieving a political and social end may indeed be worthwhile but at a core moral level, what do you become to get there? To put it another way and that might hit home with you, are you not in your own way becoming an image of Moreluck in order to oppose her belief system and it's imposing it's will on you?
BTW: My "cotton" comment was not meant to offend but rather to prove a point by "shock effect" if you will and I apologize if it did offend.