You win bonehead of the year award. Talk about totally missing the point. The household is an analogy. When using analogies, the analogue is something which exists instead of the that which it is analogizing to.
Care to reread my reply instead of throwing insults?
It's a question of how you understand property rights. You are saying, you have property rights in your household, and, therefore, you can set up any rules that you like. I agree.
Now, you are saying that by analogy, government can set up any rules on the territory it is controlling, and on its citizens anywhere in the world. By analogy, I assume that government has property rights on everything that's on its territory, and on its citizens.
The main argument in your analogy is related to private property. You cannot omit this argument when transferring your reasoning from analogy to the thing you are analogizing to. Isomorphism between analogy and what is being analogized to cannot include just the conclusions, it has to include the initial axioms and logical connections as well.