Taking property (inanimate objects) is not violence. Hurting human beings is violence. Letting human beings starve is violence. Letting human beings die of exposure is violence
prop·er·ty (prpr-t)
n. pl. prop·er·ties
1.
a. Something owned; a possession.
You invented a definition here; use standard definitions from now on. Now, using the standard definition, we can see that it is not in reference to "inanimate objects", it is in reference to things which are owned. Ownership is a concept I'm sure you're familiar with: if someone takes your kidneys, will you say it's non-violent? No, you will not. Will you stop him from taking it? Yes, you will. Why? Because they're your kidneys, you own them. Likewise, if someone takes your food and shelter, or the means you upkeep your food and shelter such as savings, machinery, and so forth, is it still non-violent? No; you're depriving someone of something and they will starve as a result (as you said later there: letting human beings starve is violence.) Here is the first contradiction you've made (at least in this small excerpt): you are the first to starve a human being whilst insisting letting human beings starve is violence. This is called by many things, but let's keep it simple:
you are a hypocrite.The next mistake you made is this: aggression and violence are two separate things. Adherents to the NAP are not against violence; they're against initiation of force. This means, if you try to take my kidneys, or any other property I own, I'm going to stop you. With violence.
Finally: letting a human being starve of his own accord is the equivalent of saying, "You have harmed another human being by existing", which is fundamentally the political form of original sin: "you have breathed, you are therefore guilty." While this may be true in the fantastical land of Beliathon (in which case, I nominate you as the first martyr), in the political philosophy of libertarianism, you are not an aggressor by doing nothing; we know this to be true, because, much like 'non-religious' is not a religion, doing nothing is not an action; because violence is an action, the idea that you can have "violent inaction" is a paradox at worst and an incompatible statement at best; it's an "action without action", it is null, it means nothing, you literally cannot do that. Ergo, to assert that "letting a human being starve" is violent is not only a testament to your ability to think clearly (kinda hard to argue with
emotion, but if that's your plan of action, so be it), but you have also assigned the starving man as the most violent man in his life, for none is more responsible for his well-being than he. Great job! I'll tip a fedora and stroke a neckbeard in your likeness.