Crazy Republican Ron Paul Calls Elizabeth Warren a Socialist
I wasn't sure if anyone seen this video but I just thought I'd show it because it reveals how crazy Ron Paul actually is and proves that he's nothing more then a state's rights activist.
= new reply since forum marked as read
But this does show what Ron Paul's "ideas" are made of.
... to many people are still under the illusion the Chilean experiment actually did work well, candidate in question being included in that number most unequivocally, and seemingly altruistically. ron paul might end up further dividing the two groups in the US on the fringes that want fundamental change, such a lack of unity won't tide well for enacting any 
.
fixt!
That 'add "not"' was supposed to be in the 'edit remarks' field. Oh well, fixt again.
... it's really difficult to listen to that freakin' nutball.
And there are some that think this kind of idiocy is actually a significant threat?
I think the problem here is the mind set we have when we think about ownership, having join ownership in a company if it was an institutional norm would not have to require a huge commitment above what is currently beyond what we consider in wage labor; currently to have join ownership require more commitment from the investors when undertaking a share in a small business, but if you look at the more developed examples like the UK's co-op (which is flawed for many reasons, though I would argue that is not to do with market conditions), but lets get to the other fly favored drink...
The basic economic model to the theory of capitalism is you have demand, which equals something called marginal willingness to pay(MWTP), then you have firms, firms develop and produce goods to meet MWTP because a profit motive exists, an equilibrium is then found between the firms and the MWTP as the firms and the consumers are said to be forces that can be in balance and claimed that this is proof of reaching the social optimum. However what is not addressed in the model is that the firms hire the a section of consumers, these employees interests are in opposition to both the firms interest and that of the consumers they produce for, as wages reduce the firms profit and/or increase price for the consumer, so this fundamental model does not have equilibrium, but instead is a negative feed back loop, with a growing inequality gap. I would argue that social factors are the limiter and that resent history backs up this hypothesis, when excluding variables.
If workers all owned the means of production and had a democratic influence over the produce then the equation works as they can now be referred to as one of two opposing forces
The reasons for this though as you identified are greater than economical, capitalism is a profoundly undemocratic system, which is a large reason why politically the west is not very democratic, this form of ownership would stop many externalities, reduce inequality, reduce alienation of labor, corporate social responsibility would not longer be code for PR etc.
Of course just like with the system we have at the moment it would still not be perfect and would require fine tuning
P.s sorry for the essay 
... the question is whether democratic worker ownership is more socially optimum than private hierarchical systems, after all this is the basis for an economic models ratification, and so the long and short term implications of both systems pro and cons must be weighed against each other to see which is desirable, the most fundamental aspects to address are the central dynamics, as I went into before.
Back to the issue you identified though, it may well pose a problem with the establishment of many models of worker ownership, along with similar problems like the purposed problem of minority non-representation of say the more skilled workers etc (although it is worth noting the current situation does I would argue a worse job of it), the tariffs and subsidies argument (again I would say there are worse parallels in neocapitalism)
I don't know about that examples specifics, but remember there are many different possible ways for co-ops can be constructed, using a blend of things like representation, consensus and veto's, not all are the same construct(1). In general it could be said the argument generally is in large due to the advertisers and politics that control much of the media content, which require such structures to be demonized or marginalized(2), under the profit motive; In doing so it is much like an elephant and a mouse in a small room and the elephant complaining the mouse is taking up to much space; under capitalism the majority of all workers are non-people, without democratic influence, the creepy part to this is how much this is overlooked.
It doesn't mean that there is not a solution to this problem, or indeed that the problem would even exist in the new model, as a co-op based economy would not have to compete in the same way as it does in the current solely profit orientated climate; in any case transitional methods would have to be introduced.
Regulation would be the last and feasible option to your dilemma, or possibly a union/s exclusively for temps and freelance workers(3) in balance with the businesses. The perforable solution would be to end traditional wage labor eventually, having easy investment liquidity, transferability or a less profit driven method for investment would be a good step in what are supposed to be relatively free entry and exit opportunities(4).
If all those characters didn't stuff you full then here's a few links:
(1) http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Workers-of-the-world-co-operate/
(2) www.you
tube.com/watch?v=E8oHl3ooeZo&list=FLRJp-uT-r9ca6DwkTdinnAA&index=37&feature=plpp_video
(3) http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/workerCo-Ops.html
(4) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4-Vr4KKQd4sC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=free+entry+and+exit+principle&source=bl&ots=A_ObiQ8R4G&sig=e4HshTNHwqg0hGzw-VcCrfaIQkY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9ascT8rKHdOZ8gO9oa3KCw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=free%20entry%20and%20exit%20principle&f=false
PS My talents seem to reside in other places than the use of grammatical accuracy or restrain, hopefully it's in the content that it is made with.
PPS Hmm, maybe have gone a bit to far from this threads sheep pen now, I'm new here so I don't really know this forums code of conduct yet beyond T&Cs.
Of course get any two libertarians to agree on anything...
is that they're only too quick to use the same "socialist" services such as libraries, schools, roads, police & fire protection, Medicare, Social Security, etc. And if they travel to a first world country where health care is a basic human right, you'll notice that they don't hightail it back to the U.S.'s for-profit, wealth-rationed health care, they use the other country's health care.
some of us would. 
