It's not sufficient to just take away those things that interfere with a free market if you intend to leave in place all of the benefits (and handicaps) accrued under the old system of exploitation. And if you don't do anything to remedy the "too big to fail", or to remedy the "captured regulators" or the "lobbyists", etc., you've created a free market in name only.
They claim is that the workers have helped shape and define the job, its responsibilities and reward, etc., and as a result they have a legitimate claim to it.You can certainly interpret this argument as a form of homesteading and at a glance it is compelling. Is it valid though?
If a workplace needs to be unionized, it's already a problem that "seizing the means of production" can't fix.
