No. There are no property rights without force. The statutes you mention are meaningless without the force of law behind them.
If that is the case, then all that is required to deprive you of your property, including your life, is a change in law. Essentially, a government could order your death and you would have to accept this as a moral act. See, I don't think you realize it, but when you frame the argument for property the way you do, you are actually enshrining force as the sole arbiter of everything ethical and moral about human action. If this is what you believe, then right and wrong itself is completely dependent upon force. Rape, murder, and theft do not exist as long as you are on the right side of the gun barrel. Essentially, this is an outright endorsement of Ghengis Khan's ethical system. I would highly suggest that you take a look at your life and ask yourself if this really is the ethical system that you use to go about your daily life.
That said, I do not think that force creates property rights. I believe that force can be a reaction to property rights, but that is not the same as force creating property. This is provable in the logical sense because things like rape, murder and theft cannot occur simultaneously. For example, two people along in a room cannot rape each other. If they tried, the outcome would be something other than rape. The fact that we have this word, the fact that humans use moral language universally, supports the idea that self ownership and therefore property exists separate from force. Our language reflects human nature which is part of nature. I think that even if you removed words like rape, murder, and theft from our lexicon, you would still find this basic principle present in conscious beings. Observations of animals with lower levels of consciousness confirm this.
So, lets compare the results of these two very different ethical systems in this situation and see which one you actually agree with. If property is created through force, then there is nothing wrong with the Argentinians simply walking in and taking the Falklands despite what the people want. You cannot pass moral judgement upon them if they have the strength to hold it because they would have the monopoly on the force of law. If property exists separate from force, then the Argentinians would be committing an act that is morally wrong. They could be held responsible and there could be a chance for justice. This same comparison could be made for any situation where moral behavior is involved.
I believe that human society exists in a pre-rational state. Most people do not grasp the idea that fundamental principles exists and simply believe that force will determine the moral nature of all human action. The next step in our development as a species will be the recognition that the initiation of force IS irrational. It precludes reason by preventing men from recognizing their rational mutual self interests. This is because the initiation of force introduces a negative into any human action for at least one party. Win win, peaceful negotiations are impossible in situations where force is initiated and our society becomes a poorer and scarcer place overall.
By the way, you only own your kidneys because their is someone forcing others to leave them in your body. China has a large problem right now with illegal organ harvesting. If there were no laws preventing it, someone could take you out and take your kidneys for fun and profit.
