I see your points and sure I agree with Adam Smith. Much of what he wrote didn’t focus so much to natural human rights. He was more concerned with defining how an economic system could be governed and saw government as an inevitability. Which it is, like power tools are an eventual inevitability for construction. However Smith does not make the absolute claim that property cannot exist without an empowered government intermediary or authority. Instead, he said the basis of property arises naturally from human labor, possession, and social recognition (see his discussions of early societies and moral sentiments for that). Experts aside… truth speaks for itself. Citations are helpful sure, but especially if you are dependent on statements from an authority or expert. In the end, all individuals will disagree on something. In summary… “Property rights cannot exist without enforcement” from who? Only government? In my example of two people in the woods naturally trading, they mutually enforce each other’s property. No government intermediary needed. However everything they are doing to self-govern that situation is inline with Adam smith. So if you simply expand your definition of government to include self-governance by the individual parties then we probably agree. But it sounds like you would restrict your definition of government to require the empowerment of an intermediary over the parties.