All Your Mean of Production Are Belong to Us

Imagine you own a pizza place. For the sake of simplicity, we'll have you be the only person working at this pizza place; it doesn't employ anyone else. The place makes enough money to break even and to provide you with what you need materially, but not much more.
One day, some representative of the government -- doesn't matter which branch, or who it is -- comes to you and says that it is going to shut down your pizza place, your only source of income. "Why?" you ask, naturally quite taken aback.
"Oh, it seems your pizza shop has not generated a lot of revenue," the government person replies.
"Yeah, not a whole lot," you say. "Enough for me, though. So what?"
"You see, without a lot of access revenue, your business has not been paying much in taxes," the gov rep says.
"Well, I pay the percentage of my income -- both business tax and personal income tax -- and it's considerable for me, but yeah, I guess you could say it's not a lot by an absolute measure," you answer, not sure what this person is getting at.
"Exactly," your new buddy says. "And because your shop isn't generating a lot of tax revenue for the government, the government has decided -- measuring the income versus what the government has put into founding this shop -- that the shop is unprofitable and must be shut down."
"What?" you cry. "Where do you folks get off doing that?"
"Simple," s/he says. "We own your shop, of course. Like i said, we've put a lot into this shop, and we expect a bigger return if we want to stay competitive with the other world goverments."
"What do you mean, you own my shop? No, you don't," you insist. "I do. I do all the work here, i put up the money to buy the building and the property and the overhead ..."
"Ah, but what about all the things the government did to found this shop and keep it going?"
"Like what?"
"For example, you have police that keep the shop safe from robbers, you have garbage collectors, et cetera, et cetera," s/he says.
"Well, what about the money?" you ask.
"If you recall, the government did a lot from a financial or monetary standpoint to start the shop," the rep says. "You got loans from the government to buy the building and overhead, the other money you used was insured by the full faith and credit of the government in the bank so you had guaranteed access to it, oh, not to mention, you happened to attend public schools that helped your business skills --"
"I had no college," you protest (let's just say).
"But you went to public elementary and high schools that taught you math and what-have-you." (let's just say)
"But what if I'd gone to private schools? And what if I hadn't borrowed government money?"
"The point still stands. The property belongs to the government, as you know."
"No one told me!"
"Ah, yes. The land happened to have been sold to the government by the native tribes long ago." the rep says. (i won't get into the mess with that for now).

--And so you and the gov rep keep arguing. Now, you could make a bunch of arguments that the property belongs to you, but chances are the gov drone rebuts with some arguments to government ownership that -- although they don't totally seem to make sense -- you somehowcannot seem to poke through entirely. In the end, you can come up with one primary argument as to your claim -- you have done the work at that pizza place.
What i'm doing here is NOT defending government ownership of your pizza place or anything else. We'll assume that the government drone here is an asshole and that the pizza place is rightfully yours. What i'd like you to do, though, is imagine that, instead of a pizza place where you're self-employed as the only worker, you work at a larger company (let's say, not so randomly, a Hoover plant in North Canton, Ohio); and that instead of a government wienie, you have some wienie from higher up in the corporate organization coming to tell you and your coworkers that your plant is going to be shut down because it's just not making a profit for the company. You didn't know it wasn't making a profit; your wages had kep up with inflation 9let's say) and you'd been doing as well as you always had, although not making a lot. They explain to you that when they say profit, they mean a bigger chunk of the overall money generated from selling Hoover products or other widgets or services or whatever that goes not to you, but to the higher ups in the company. You protest that they don't make the products, and the rep replies that they do a bunch of things that are necessary for the running of the company, like, for example, putting up the money for the buidling of the factory and the purchasing of the original overhead. The rep might even say that it puts up the money to buy materials and pay your wages, although of course you know that money comes from the stuff you make.
I could go on, but you might start getting the idea. Remember, the idea of property rights we protect here in the U.S. -- which i won't critique here, for this post's purposes -- comes from philosophical ideas holding that the right to a piece of property comes when one has taken something from God's natural world and mixed it with one's labor to produce something else of value. Think about that, and think about how much the CEO or the stockholder would be seen to have the right to own a company under this idea -- relative to the worker, who does the labor.

See also this comic I found, which makes basically the same argument:

http://www.apolitical.info/images/carefuldollar.jpg