one of the key elements in understanding right from wrong is what rights are and where they come from. if one doesn't understand these concepts, one's ideas concerning ethics and morality will be inconsistent, lost in a haze of personal preference and emotionalism.
rights can be defined as the entitlement to one's property and the right to property is really the only right that exists. all other "rights" are merely extensions of the right to property. property can mean anything legitimately owned and it can be as basic as the body and mind, or the "self", all the way out to whatever extravagance one can imagine. anything that is legitimately owned has come into one's ownership by non-violent means. in other words, coercion of others constitutes a violation of person or property (which are really one in the same, separated here to avoid confusion), of which no legitimate ownership can result. property is that object to which only those who can claim legitimate ownership can be assigned responsibility.
often, the word "rights" is used, incorrectly, to denote privileges or idealistic preferences. much of the misuse of the term can be attributed to the confusion between "positive rights" and "negative rights". positive rights are based on the idea that people have a right "to" something. these days we often hear about the right to healthcare. but, positive rights are not actually rights at all. to illustrate why, let's take the idea of having a right to healthcare. if everyone, regardless of circumstance has a right to healthcare, then denial of healthcare would be a violation of one's rights. so, if a doctor had been up for 48 straight hours servicing the "rights" of people to healthcare, and he decided to sleep to avoid health problems rather than see the next patient, he would be violating the rights of that person. the problem is that the idea of positive rights relies on forcing others to do things that they may not want to do, or be able to do. that use of force, or coercion, is a violation of that person's right to their own body, skills, etc.
on the other hand, negative rights are compatible with property. negative rights are the rights not to have others infringe on your person or property. thus, negative rights are the only real rights, all of which are extensions of the only true right; the right of property.
the violation of property rights is the basis for all truly criminal acts. any act not violating real rights is not a true crime. crime is often labeled as any action violating the statutory laws instituted by the state, but this is a very soft definition that can be used to describe any action at whim of the state. true crime involves the violation of the person or property of others. this idea is what makes the state the largest criminal organization. it is, in its essence, a rights violator. it stops, through force, any who attempt to enter certain markets, like regional defense, security, or justice; it forces people, many against their will, to fund the activities of the state through inflation, taxation, tarrif, etc. it applies arbitrary laws "criminalizing" certain peaceful activities, like drug use, prostitution or gambling - all of which people have the right to participate in as long as they don't infringe on the person or property of others. it perpetrates war on innocent civilians while attacking other countries, violating the rights of those it forces to fund such things as well as those innocents whom it murders in the process.
equally, all people have a right to their property, regardless of stature or class, wealth or political association. this is one of the great myths of the state: that some, specifically those of the political class, have any right to do any of the things they do; that they have rights which we do not and that they are able to do things that are criminal for us, that are not for them. we all have equal rights, vested in our person and property. the acceptance of the state is the rejection of equal rights.