Molyneux's property rights proof bogus?

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]S8o_BWS2jG0[/yt]

I think he's really nitpicking, honestly.
I stopped watching at the robot example, which implied to me, that he didn't get the point of Molyneux's argument.

The part that was nitpicking seemed to be in the beginning where he points out that, because a person doesn't have total control of the effects of their actions, they only try to predict them as best they can, ergo his claim of owning the effects of our actions is invalid via that proof.
Which seems to me like really nitpicking.  If we don't own the effects of our actions via the fact that we are the only ones who can have exclusive control over our bodies, or are not responsible for them (what Molyneux's argument was) then who is?

His argument reminds me of this person on Shane's latest video saying that intentions matter.
Like if a person's actions cause someone to die (using that person's example) then he wouldn't necessarily be responsible because there was no intention, he is not responsible for the effects of his/her action.
That's more or less what his rebuttal to Molyneux's point seems to be.
Which is nitpicking at best.

I posted this for Lord T Hawkeye, but anyone else can feel free to comment.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I've maintained and still do now that intentions do not matter.  You can do great things with selfish intentions and you can do terrible things with the most noble intentions.  Actions and consequences are all that matter.

And yes, the vid is nitpicking and completely missed the whole point.