Property is absolutely based on consensus, property beyond anything you control with your direct person is very much one of those polite fictions society collectively agrees to, like money and laws.
If the large majority of people, for whatever reason, decided to stop agreeing, such fictions would cease to exist.
This isn't true of things like property rights which could be sustained even with only minority support provided the minority had a sufficient military advantage.
It is true of DNS because consensus is inherently required to prevent it from fragmenting and ceasing to exist as a single global namespace.
If the same thing happened with Bezos's wealth, it would cease existing, or at least the concept of him owning it would cease existing.
That's the difference. Ownership of property is entirely within people's minds.
If so much as one person still remembers and can prove it to everyone else, or it's documented somewhere on paper, then it would still exist. Likewise all Bezos would need is that documentation. Which is really how it works in practice. There are only a handful of people and documents concerned with exactly what someone owns. The large majority of people have no idea who owns an arbitrary piece of land or share of stock. The information comes from an authority, not a consensus.
Whereas if we're talking about the concept of property rights in general rather than specific ownership records then we're back to them being enforced by a government which it is in principle possible for them to do via superior force independent of popular support.
But most people don't think that. They wish they had as much money as him, maybe they think society is unfair to allow someone to have so much money. But you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who supports arbitrarily stripping someone of their (current) property.
Isn’t that what the Warren wealth tax is?
the ruling will be enforced if there is a consensus that it is a just ruling
The Supreme Court regularly makes rulings that are contrary to popular opinion. I see no evidence that the rulings are not being enforced despite the lack of consensus that they were just. They also regularly make rulings that align with the slight popular majority but the popular opinion is still about evenly split with no clear consensus one way or the other, and those rulings are enforced as well.
The DNS really does operate on consensus. There is nobody forcing everybody to do it a particular way. We get real consensus because everybody has a strong interest in not creating global namespace conflicts through forks. But that doesn't mean you can't make a change to fix a mistake, it only means you need to get enough support behind it for it to become the consensus position.