McFarland really confuses me. First he acts weird about some topics, and then he comes out and hits the nail on the head for others.
Of course he is right, any imaginary line drawn about whether or not it is worth it to violently defend your property will be pushed further and further back until you're not allowed to defend yourself. Hell, we're practically there.
It's either right to defend ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY, or NONE OF IT. With the second option, you've jumped head first into the idea that there is no such thing as personal property. Welcome to communism.