Rights can properly be seen to exist at two levels.

The owner of a property has a right to do what he will with his own property.  This includes his own person, and the energies of his own life.

Obviously, the individual has no right to impose his property on another person, for the other person is not his property.  His rights and rights of ownership go only to the boundary of his own property, and no futher.  They do not exist beyond the boundary of his property.

Since all men have equal rights, each man may do as he pleases within his own boundaries, and within the boundaries of such properties as he owns.

If a man wishes to cross the boundary of another person, including the boundary of a property that the other person owns, he moves to to the relationship of privilege, not of right, and he must obtain the permission and consent of the owner of that property.  He may only then do, what the owner of that property permits.

No one has a "right" to the property of someone else.  No one rightfully has any claim of entitlement to a privilege regarding the property of another. 

An owner is not in any way obligated to grant a permission or privilege to someone regarding the use of a property which he rightfully owns, unless he has voluntarily (and without coercion) agreed to that obligation.

If an alleged "right" involves the expropriation of property from one person to benefit another, it is not a "right".   In fact, from the perspective of the individual whose property is molested or confiscated, it is nothing more or less than an act of theft.