I am not getting in between you and Bobb, but I think that when he says private property, he means in the context of communism. In Marxism and communism, private property is understood to mean means of production.

So yes, in a technical sense, consumables can be thought of as a class of property, however, just because someone owns some bread and milk, it does not mean he is a now a "property-owner" in a way that is understood by most people.

So are they a "consumable-owner" then?

No, because such a term does not exist. You are free to come up with whatever name you can think of. But just know that they would not be considered property-owners as is understood by most people.

I don't get why you try so hard to prove that people who have milk and bread are "property-owners". If you tell this to an average person, he will laugh at you.

So if your jug of milk isn't property of any kind, does that mean I can come take yours without recourse or complaint?

Did I say that they could be take away? No, I never said that. I was merely telling you that owning bread and milk does not make one a property-owner as the term is understood by most people. You keep badgering me as if I made things this way. No I didn't. I am just the messenger. And my message to you is that, feel free to call someone with bread and milk a "property-owner". But just be prepared that people will laugh at you.

I really don't know what you are trying to achieve anyway. Even if you could successfully argue that owning bread and milk now means someone owns property, it still does nothing to change the veracity of what Bobb said. You are just being hung up on some very minor detail.

Am I not allowed to take it because you own it?

Ok. Bread and milk are properties. Someone who owns bread and milk is a property-owner. There. You win. Can you please stfu now?

And what kind of "property" are they?

Don't know and don't care.

Keep going though, you and your questions are really going somewhere.

Do you think "personal property" may suffice?