Problems from the start - Part 2

Go back and read Part 1. Become very confused.

Now, I try to explain what I mean, in several more posts. I broke it up to make it easier to understand. I hope.

Let's look at rights. What is a right? A sentient being has rights, sentient being the qualifier. Please note, well-being and personal welfare are not the same as rights.

To have a right, a being must be able to know right from wrong, make conscious decisions, plan and understand actions have consequences. Leave one of these out and the entity does not have rights, by my thinking.

The ability to think is what rights are based on.

A being with a right can grant welfare, a state of being kept healthy, to a non-sentient being.

This is why I oppose animal rights, but support animal welfare.

Now let's get particular-

Do you have the right to go into someone's house and take their possessions?

Do you have the right to take their TV and give it to someone else? Do you have the right to take their TV and sell it to someone else?

No conditions or qualifiers in the questions. The only context is, it's as simple as you walking into my house, picking up a TV and walking out with it. Do you have the right to do this?

Do I have the right to do this to you?

Do two people have the right to go in your house, take your TV and sell it or give it away?

Do three people have this right?

Add as many people as you wish. The number of people taking the TV is completely irrelevant and so relevant that the question can't be asked without knowing the number of people.

I still ask if one person can do it. I still ask if the number of people taking one TV matters.

I suggest it is wrong for one person to do it. But is it wrong for a group of people to do it?

Yeah, I know. You are now more confused than ever. It gets worse before it gets better.