I am educating myself on the differences between positive and negative rights. [This website][1] describes positive rights as 'freedom to' something, and negative rights as 'freedom from' something.

Specifically, it states (emphasis mine):

"My negative freedom requires only that you respect the right by not preventing me in doing it. Examples of negative rights are the right to live, to be free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from violence, freedom from slavery, and property rights.

My positive right requires you to respect it by complying with it. Examples of positive rights are the rights to free schooling, free healthcare, a job, and a minimum wage."

Positive rights require some type of positive claim over an external resource (healthcare, education, wages), whereas negative rights represent a freedom from some type of external restriction (restriction of religion, speech, movement).

However, it strikes me that property rights do not seem to fit cleanly into either of these forms.

Property rights:

1) Require a positive form claim over an external resource: 
     If I claim ownership over a piece of land/resource/etc, 
     the burden of proof is on me, to provide evidence to 
     support my claim in the form of a title/deed/army/etc

2) Others are forced to comply with my claim    

3) Restricts anyone else from accessing that claimed resource

4) Do NOT require anyone else to provide me with anything

1 and 2 seem like elements of positive rights: ie, I claim a right to healthcare, and others must comply with my claim.

3 is a restriction on the freedoms of others, specifically, you are NOT free to use resources that I have claimed*. Most negative rights are based on the absence of a restriction: ie, in the absence of religious restrictions, there is freedom of religion.

4 does seem like an element of negative rights. Freedom of speech doesn't require anything of anyone else.

From what I can tell, property rights appear to display elements of both positive and negative rights. So why are property rights usually considered a negative right?

*I am aware that capitalists and socialists have very different opinions on whether this restriction is justified or not. Debating the merits of that restriction is NOT the intent of this question. This question should focus on the structure and nature of positive vs negative rights. [1]: https://www.liberalistene.org/knowledge/positive-and-negative-rights/

I am educating myself on the differences between positive and negative rights. [This website][1] describes positive rights as 'freedom to' something, and negative rights as 'freedom from' something.

Specifically, it states (emphasis mine):

"My negative freedom requires only that you respect the right by not preventing me in doing it. Examples of negative rights are the right to live, to be free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from violence, freedom from slavery, and property rights.

My positive right requires you to respect it by complying with it. Examples of positive rights are the rights to free schooling, free healthcare, a job, and a minimum wage."

Positive rights require some type of positive claim over an external resource (healthcare, education, wages), whereas negative rights represent a freedom from some type of external restriction (restriction of religion, speech, movement).

However, it strikes me that property rights do not seem to fit cleanly into either of these forms.

Property rights:

1. Require a positive form claim over an external resource: If I claim ownership over a piece of land/resource/etc, the burden of proof is on me, to provide evidence to support my claim in the form of a title/deed/army/etc

2. Others are forced to comply with my claim

3. Restricts anyone else from accessing that claimed resource

4. Do NOT require anyone else to provide me with anything

1 and 2 seem like elements of positive rights: ie, I claim a right to healthcare, and others must comply with my claim.

3 is a restriction on the freedoms of others, specifically, you are NOT free to use resources that I have claimed*. Most negative rights are based on the absence of a restriction: ie, in the absence of religious restrictions, there is freedom of religion.

4 does seem like an element of negative rights. Freedom of speech doesn't require anything of anyone else.

From what I can tell, property rights appear to display elements of both positive and negative rights. So why are property rights usually considered a negative right?

*I am aware that capitalists and socialists have very different opinions on whether this restriction is justified or not. Debating the merits of that restriction is NOT the intent of this question. This question should focus on the structure and nature of positive vs negative rights. [1]: https://www.liberalistene.org/knowledge/positive-and-negative-rights/