> 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

> 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.