No. I’m defining “right to do something” consistently. An armed robber has no right to take my wallet forcibly, because he is not the established monopoly of force; however, the established monopoly does have rights to my wallet, and it effectively demonstrates the rights every April 15th..

Nonsense. You are destroying the meaning of “right to do something“ by conflating it with “monopoly power“. This is hardly any more justified than simply conflating it with “power“.

An act doesn’t become “right” merely because it is done by those possessing monopoly power. The mass slaughters perpetuated by history’s various dictatorships are not “right” just because those who did it held “monopoly power”. Why on earth would you claim such a thing? It’s ridiculous.

The net effect of your approach to concepts is to obliterate any possible distinction between right and wrong. According to your definition — since both are acts of “monopoly power” — the police officer who interrupts an attempted rape, thereby saving the rape victim and apprehending the rapist, has the same moral standing as did Hussein’s thugs who dragged women at random off the streets of Baghdad into the regime’s rape rooms for a night of torture. According to your definitions, both parties had an equal “right” to do what they did. To equate rapists and murderers with those who protect us from rape and murder is a moral obscenity.

And this statement:

So the just man is a thief, and property is theft.

This is more nonsense. This is the logical fallacy of the “stolen concept”. The concept of “theft” only has meaning as a contrast to the antecedent concept of that which is “rightfully owned”, i.e. that which is, properly, “property”. To claim that property itself is theft, is to use one concept — “theft” — to deny the legitimacy of the very concept — “property” — that gives “theft” any meaning, which is, literally, a contradiction in terms.

Your entire epistemological approach destroys the meanings of concepts by obliterating the legitimate distinctions between them. It’s just like the ridiculous nonsense you’ve peddled here before that “capitalism is whatever capitalists do” and “a capitalist is anyone who controls capital”. This means that Stalin — who did indeed “control capital” — qualifies as a capitalist and his acts of mass murder and the looting of millions of individual’s property become acts of “capitalism”.

Defining a concept so that it can mean one thing and can also mean the opposite thing is to give it no specific meaning at all; such a definition renders the concept meaningless and useless. This approach to definitions is errant nonsense that only sows epistemological confusion and destroys the utility of concepts.