Unfortunately, I haven’t yet been able to distill these observations into statistical laws like the first law of economics.
The foremost observation is that you can’t actually own anything that you can’t reasonably defend with violence. The word “reasonably” denotes the dependence on my first principle of economics (aeolinomics?): human action derives from psychology, not game theory. So it may be true that you can’t defend your house from the combined might of the United States government, it is unlikely that they want to take it. If for some reason they did want it, you would find that your property rights mean only as much as the steel you and your friends can put on target.
Even if it turns out you can lay down enough fire to make it economically unprofitable to take away your house, you’re going to learn that the psychology of your attackers is far more important than the house itself. Here’s a quick parable I left at Koanic’s place, expressing this:
Imagine a sociopath is the last man alive after a nuclear holocaust. He sees a milk cow inside of a stable. But the stable is locked and, after trying for a while, he decides he won’t be able to get in and take the cow in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore he burns the stable down and kills the cow.
Call it the Waco effect. The act of armed resistance is probably more important than the house itself.
Now, I mentioned “you and your friends”. Due to the anomie of the modern European man, it’s unlikely you have any friends or family who are willing to take your side in a fistfight, much less a firefight. Thus, it’s important to note that politics plays a huge role in one’s ability to leverage the threat of violence.
To wrap that idea up in a more reasonable tone, it’s important to remember that most people are raised to be civil, or at the very least docile. So even though a lot of people probably want your stuff, chances are they’d experience overwhelming anxiety in the process of actually trying to take it. Only low-functioning psychopaths do home invasions because it’s just not worth the trouble.
A government bureaucrat may try to take your stuff, but the seizure is unlikely to be violent unless you resist (at which point their agents’ primary directive becomes your submission). The best response here is to make as big of a political fuss as possible. If the reaction is hot enough (implying the threat of expensive violence), the bureaucracy is likely to give back the house to avoid the fuss. But the important thing is to understand that what we conceive of as private property is just on loan from people with bigger guns.
To further illustrate the reliance of economics and politics on psychology, imagine a king who rules over the entire earth. One day he learns that a man, living alone and minding his own business and whose file says that he is mentally and emotionally stable, has possession of a biological weapon that could kill 99% of mankind. What does the king think about, day and night? Think about it. It’s just the way power works.
Well, that was rambly.