Property rights are the prototypical example of a negative right, so you seem to be defining the concept in a non-standard way.<p>I think the names are poorly chosen, though. A &quot;negative&quot; right is one for which a specific &quot;violater&quot; can always be identified. If you are stolen from, then someone stole from you. A &quot;positive&quot; right is one in which the only identifiable culprit is &quot;everyone&quot; or &quot;society&quot;. If you don&#x27;t have enough to eat, it&#x27;s because society didn&#x27;t provide a way for you to feed yourself; it&#x27;s not that specific person&#x27;s fault because they didn&#x27;t hand over their sandwich.<p>This seems to be the main point of disagreement between us. You seem to be saying that if someone doesn&#x27;t have enough to eat, then it is everyone else&#x27;s fault individually. My point of view is that it&#x27;s possible for someone to go hungry without it being anyone&#x27;s fault in particular; it&#x27;s just the result of a bad system. Maybe you&#x27;re morally obligated to try to improve the system, but you&#x27;re not morally obligated to give away everything you have to anyone who asks.