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.
ROFL, I don't "own" my kidneys, they are a part of me, without them I die. I AM my kidneys. Further you cannot "take" my kidneys without doing (serious) violence against me - cutting me open. Nice strawman though. Nah just kidding, it was the shittiest, stupidest strawman in the thread.
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?
Context matters. What's the context of this hypothetical? Am I a capitalist exploiting hundreds or thousands of workers for personal gain? An oppressor profiting from the suffering of others? What is this person's relationship to me? Is this person starving or homeless? Am I? Are they a slave? A wage-slave?
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.
The fact that you cannot comprehend the difference between vital organs and
property means it's probably safe to assume that you're not intelligent enough to engage in a fruitful debate here. I'm going to go ahead and stop responding to you now.
Yet another useless economic fundamentalist, I'm afraid you add little to nothing to the conversation.