Yes If you lose it, it would be silly to say you lost a million.

But that's not at all what we are talking about here, is it?

Here, you didn't lose it; someone else stole it. You are conveniently trying to avoid that very huge distinction.

You can't make philosophical (or legal) arguments using fundamentally flawed logic or changing the circumstances to suit your argument. That's even worse than the original flaw in your argument. It is just trying to dodge around it.

You should also consider taking a refresher course on philosophy to revisit your coursework on Kant, Locke, Hobbes, and Aristotle. You will find that all of them believed that philosophy is the foundation of law and that law is the practical application of philosophy in society.

But even if none of that were true. It's also faulty to think this is even a "philosophical" argument in the first place. In the world we actually live in, legal arguments outweigh philosophical ones.

So again, if you really believe this is the case, I invite you to try it. Steal something from a store and try to argue that its value is based on anything other than the retail price. First, I want to see if you get arrested by a police officer or a philosopher. And then I want to see just how hard the judge laughs at your argument while he passes the sentence.