You must accept that property rights and the non-aggression principle are fundamentally incompatible for two reasons.

First, all property was acquired through violence and therefore must be declared NULL AND VOID in a society which will truly honor any non-aggression principle

Second, unless you will begin your new society by SEIZING all property and redistributing it EQUALLY to all people of Earth, you cannot ENFORCE property rights, which presuppose wealth inequality, without systemic use of coercion and violence, AGAIN violating the non-aggression principle.

The reason capitalism and non-violence are incompatible is because capitalism IS inequality, and inequality IS violence. Without systematic top-down hierarchical violence, society would very rapidly return to the homeostasis of relative equality.

Think on it, the poorest among us have no food or shelter. Do you think they would NOT seize these resources for themselves if it wasn't for the guaranteed consequence of state violence? Of course they would. In fact, many of them do so ANYWAY because the suffering of starvation is greater than the suffering of prison.

Would you call a starving person taking food to feed themselves a violent act? If so, you are a fool and not worth debating. If not, you have just forfeited your entire argument about property rights in a society of non-aggression.

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