I believe you meant that for me. But, homesteading is derived from the NAP/golden rule: “Respect me and what’s mine, and I’ll respect you and what’s yours.” What is mine and what is yours? How do we decide that? We need claims. If I claim this apple as mine, you can either respect that claim or not. What happens if you don’t respect that claim? Well, why am I going to respect your claim to it? Thus the dispute. In our dispute, if you go ahead and say, “gotlucky, it’s my apple and you have no right to steal it from me”, then you are contradicting yourself. You might say that I have no right to take it, but your actions have demonstrated that you don’t really believe this prohibition against theft, as you have already done so.
That is estoppel. So let’s look at homesteading. This idea of first use, why would anyone subscribe to that as a rule? Why not a rule of second use or third use? Why transform or use the object in question at all? This, too, has to do with reciprocity. If I take the time to climb a tree and pick the apples, or even just collect the apples from the ground, I have clearly claimed those as my apples. If you come along and say, “gotlucky, under the rule of second use, I get to claim those apples as my own,” what do you think is going to happen? I’m going to call you nuts and tell you to get away from my stuff. Again, we have a dispute.
We can see through the ethic of reciprocity how homesteading (first use) and estoppel arise as ideas. If you assault me, you would be a hypocrite if you were to complain about the illegitimacy of my hitting you back. If you steal my apples, or break into my home, you would be a hypocrite if you were to complain if I were to respond in kind. The legal principle of estoppel is meant to prevent people from saying things like that. And homesteading is another mechanism of reciprocation. You leave my homesteaded property unmolested, and I’ll do the same for you. If you violate my homesteaded property, then I will respond in kind.
This is why homesteading and estoppel make so much sense to libertarians (and also the people who originally came up with these principles). First use makes sense to people because of reciprocity. It is a conflict avoidance mechanism (and can help resolve disputes should it not avoid them). I have my stuff, and you have your stuff. So long as we respect each other and our respective stuff, then we have no problems. We only have problems when we cannot agree as to what stuff belongs to whom or if someone just blatantly violates other people or their rightful property. This is when dispute resolution and then law kicks in. It defines the extent of the property in question.
Just don’t forget there is a reason why homesteading/first use makes so much sense to people (and especially libertarians). It is not some rule that just got thought up one day and we all happen to like it by coincidence.