But we will not tie our author too closely to the terms of his own metaphor.  The work from which I have just quoted is a booklet[27] in which he devoted himself to the task of refuting in detail the arguments urged by myself in the course of my American speeches.  We will, therefore, turn to his criticism of what, in one of my speeches, I said about the state post-office, and we shall there get further light with regard to his real meaning.  I asked how any sorter or letter-carrier employed in the post-office by the state was any more his own master, or had any more opportunities of freedom, than a messenger or other person employed by a private firm.  Our author’s answer is this:  “That the public can determine what the wages of a postman shall be—­that is, they can, if they so choose (by their votes), double the wages now prevailing.”  Therefore, our author proceeds, “the postal employe, in a manner, may be considered as a man employing himself.”  Now, first let me observe that, as was shown in our seventh chapter, wages under socialism, just as under the present system, could be no more than a share of the total product of the community; and the claims advanced to a share of this by any one group of workers would be consequently limited by the claims of all the others.  The question, therefore, of whether the postmen’s wages should be doubled at any time, or whether they might not have to be halved, would not depend only on votes, but, also and primarily, on the extent of the funds available; and in so far as it depended on votes at all, the votes would not be those of the postmen.  They would be the votes of the general public, and any special demand on the part of one body of workers would be neutralised by similar demands on the part of all the others.  Further, if these “employers of themselves” could not determine their own wages, still less would they determine the details of the work required of them.  A postman, like a private messenger, is bound to do certain things, not one of which he prescribes personally to himself.  At stated hours he must daily be present at an office, receive a bundle of letters, and then set out to deliver them at private doors, in accordance with orders which he finds written on the envelopes.  Such is the case at present, and socialism would do nothing to modify it.  If our author thinks that a man, under these conditions, is his own employer, our author must be easily satisfied, and we will not quarrel with his opinion.  It will be enough to point out that the moment he descends to details his promise that socialism would equalise economic opportunity for all reduces itself to the contention that the ordinary labourer or worker would, if the state employed him, have a better chance of promotion and increased wages than he has to-day, when employed by a private firm, and (we may add, though our author does not here say so) that some sort of useful work would be devised by the state for everybody.