Would you agree that a right to property would precede a right to interfere with another's property? Would a right for the public to know the specific steps an

Would you agree that a right to property would precede a right to interfere with another's property? Would a right for the public to know the specific steps an entity uses to retain property go even further afield from the original premise? Hopefully this clarifies my intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights#:~:text=As%20such%2C%20negative%20rights%20exist,of%20another%20person%20or%20group.&text=In%20theory%2C%20a%20negative%20right,respect%20to%20the%20right%20holder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights#:.... Stacking new positive rights upon each other seems like an inferior solution as compared to the original, simple solution of respecting private property. Where does the expansion of positive rights end?