Why is it somebody else's home when they might have never even seen it? Because the state says so. This is not a natural property of the universe that the state is keeping in place.
The state needs to actively physically move my body in order to protect the property that is owned by somebody else because they wrote a contract. Is that a negative right?
> Why is it somebody else's home when they might have never even seen it?
It’s their home because somebody bought the land, put in the effort to build the home, and then either decided to rent it out or decided to trade it to someone who earned the money to buy the home.
> The state needs to actively physically move my body in order to protect the property that is owned by somebody else because they wrote a contract
No, the state needs to actively physically move your body because you are breaking the contract that you signed by not vacating the home after your lease ends, and in doing so, you are violating the property rights of the homeowner.
This perspective taken to its natural conclusion would imply that homes are built on trees (pun intended, they are made of wood).
> It’s their home because somebody bought the land, put in the effort to build the home, and then either decided to rent it out or decided to trade it to someone who earned the money to buy the home.
Cool.
This then does not cleanly describe a negative right. The state is not preventing some action from being done, ensuring that people have access to the body and possessions as granted by the universe. Instead, it is taking action to change something about the world (I am currently possessing the house) based on an entirely human construct (a contract).
> it is taking action to change something about the world (I am currently possessing the house)
Living in someone's house against their will, and without their contractual agreement, does not a possessor make. The state is preventing theft, essentially. Claiming something that belongs to somebody else as your own is theft. It doesn't matter if what you're stealing is small enough that it fits in your hand, or big enough that you can walk inside it.
> ensuring that people have access to the body and possessions as granted by the universe
If you think it's the universe that built the house and that's why it should be free for anyone to take, that's the core of the problem as I mentioned above. It's like you believe houses grow on trees.
> This then does not cleanly describe a negative right.
The negative right here is that you are not entitled to property. You are not entitled to property, whether land or items, for free. You have to acquire it without breaking other people's right to their property. You have to trade for it (we've invented money as a means of doing this efficiently, so we can work and then trade the money to builders, or the person who previously owned it and hired the builders).
To sum it up: The right to property is a negative right, a "right to property" as a positive right would be government entitlement to some amount of land.
The state needs to actively physically move my body in order to protect the property that is owned by somebody else because they wrote a contract. Is that a negative right?