There are some fundamental compromises in freedom. If I have a right not to be stabbed you have a lost a right to stab me. Clearly, there are some things where this is an obviously good trade, like in not being stabbed.
I suspect this person fears they will lose some freedoms if they choose to run a company or have their options reduced in the job market if companies are regulated to be less shitty. There may be some of that, but I suspect we can take the worst offences off the table and make the market more robust creating a total increase in freedom and options for everyone.
This is why I went with a child in the mines example. Getting kids out of the mines and into schools was a complete gain for everyone beneficial to society. Employers got more educated employees. Kid got out of the mines. Coal production went up.
Yet you proceed to build a strawman.
I want the freedom to exchange my services for money without having to care about all the bullshit ownership ensues.
It takes a sociopath to conclude that idea is somehow equivalent to being stabbed or sending children to mines.
Then sell immediately, no one here is proposing forcing ownership onto employees. For nearly all Americans owning something significant that is likely to grow in value distinct from the output of their labor is an exceptional opportunity.
Just like how when children were given the opportunity to leave the mines for good there wasn't a massive popular resurgence to make abusive child labor legal again. Most people wanted kids out of mines and into other opportunities.
Most people want wealth. Most people want better opportunity than coal mines. If you want to sell your ownership you can. If you want to mine coal you can when you reach the age of majority.
Rather than view de-facto employee ownership as a burden it is an opportunity to leave a metaphorical coal mine, if you want. You could choose either way if society made de-facto ownership for labor a thing. Right most of us don't have choice.
