I don't think that distinction is particularly useful. 'Negative' rights can be reframed as positive rights, and often need a positive enforcement component to even be useful.
Consider your right for property ownership. Strictly defined as a negative right, others have an obligation not to infringe your property rights. Great if everyone is cooperative, but if somebody violates your rights you need somebody to assert a positive duty.
I'd like to think we've advanced, as a society, enough to consider more than just enforcing survival rights. Would you suggest people should have no rights to education either? This is also a positive right.
Consider your right for property ownership. Strictly defined as a negative right, others have an obligation not to infringe your property rights. Great if everyone is cooperative, but if somebody violates your rights you need somebody to assert a positive duty.
I'd like to think we've advanced, as a society, enough to consider more than just enforcing survival rights. Would you suggest people should have no rights to education either? This is also a positive right.