Unless you believe in religious or natural laws that transcend the existence of human beings and the necessity for a legitimization and thus a prioritization and are treated as "absolute", ...
... then you pretty much come to the conclusion that "rights" don't exist in a void. Rights are part of the social code of conduct of a society. Without other people, there are no rights. Simply because there's no one to honor or violate your rights. You could argue with "laws of nature" in the sense of physical cause and effect relations but that's a different kind of animal entirely. These laws describe behavior they don't prescribe it, if someone broke the rules of nature their is no "supreme court of nature" again religious people might believe in a "divine judgement" but that requires faith rather than reason.
So given that rights aren't absolute, but a social construct, something that humans collectively made up, it's apparent that they are not beyond the necessity of a purpose. They exist because it serves a mutually agreed upon useful purpose if people behaved like that. Now ideally the reason for that is that this purpose is mutually beneficial for the individual directly and/or indirectly because they secure a peaceful coexistence which again is beneficial for the individuals enjoying peace and mutual prosperity.
The less ideal version of this is "forcing agreement", i.e. "might makes right" and a legitimization of rights through the fact of punishment for violation. However while in that case these rights are treated as if they were absolute, in practical reality they behave more like "laws of nature" in the sense that there is no intrinsic motivation to honor them, they are just there and you try your best to work around and break them where possible and beneficial. There's no moral reason to accept unjust laws or rights and work towards upholding them.
So the idea of absolute property rights is somewhat contradictory as the concept of property only makes sense in the presence of other people. Nature doesn't care about your property, of course you can define it by your ability to defend the possession of something, but then it's obviously not a meaningful right, but more of a personal motivation and an act.
So very few people consider this to be an absolute right. The more reasonable approach is to consider the benefits and drawbacks of it and how they relate to other rights, needs and desires. So for example a limited right to property allows the individual to have privacy, to "build something" to make something a part of oneself and to shape a miniature world of one's own, that provides some sense of purpose, security, expression, agency, satisfaction, peace aso.
However when you treat it not as absolute but as provider of these values, then they are related to other desires and they aren't just qualitative but also quantitative. Like they don't scale indefinitely, at some point the things that you own end up owning you, what used to provide utility now requires maintenance. Also for obvious reasons other things are more important, all the property in the world mean nothing if your dead or severely injured so that might take priority in most situations, or if you're lonely, depressed, ill of any kind and so on.
So in most jurisdictions you'd rate theft as less severe than robbery (coercion), or mutilation and murder.
So as the goal is not absolutely ultimately good, it's no longer reasonable to apply any means necessary but only those proportional to the outcome and that don't do more harm than good.
Now for the final trouble with all of that. People will, based on their own immediate conditions have different lists of priorities and even if they agree on the same goals and rights they might do so for very different reasons, so their proportional might not be your proportional. And if you push people to the edge of an existential crisis "proportional" to "life or death" can be a very dangerous concept.