Some might consider free healthcare, housing, and food to be the centrist policy.
The rich get houses and mansions, but the poor get free government apartments.
Two-tiered health care will help the rich, those very devoted to paying for their own health, and/or those who take measures in their personal lives to maintain good health; while the rest get government-paid health care.
The rich and/or those so particular-they’d-pay-over-30%-of-their-income-on-food get to dine on filet mignon, $60-a-loaf bread, and drink wp:Civet coffee (rd); while the poor get at least 3000 calories a day plus their RDA of micronutrients.
That is an advocacy for leftism, which is another argument.
A wants to grow corn and soybeans on a patch of land because there will be a harvest in autumn; while B thinks hazelnuts are more lucrative and might even be less harmful to the environment; C says there’s enough food stored, so leave it fallow and maybe do some extraction, and thus save on costs and labor.
Presumably the leftist advocates that they should talk it out, and maybe reach an agreement, maybe use part of the land for each purpose.
The rightist might say the land should be divided by the three of them and see who competes better, and because each is doing what wt:thon wants, each will presumably give thons whole effort; nor does it negate voluntary cooperation: while many leftists want to abolish private property—“property is theft” and all of that (and besides “theft” of what? Theft of property? But property is theft.).
But again, free healthcare, housing, and food as a centrist, even liberal, policy doesn’t necessarily mean equal healthcare, housing, and food, just adequate, or adequate enough to curtail revolution. Presumably if all Russians and Chinese had adequate nutrition, places to sleep, and even basic health care (such as vaccines), neither Lenin nor Mao would have had much of a chance.
Presumably in the US relatively few starve, nor must be wet in the rain or freeze to death in the cold, and most got their covid-19 shots, hence it’s unlikely that the far left will take over the US anytime soon.
Yes, I can see it now:
2028, progressives will push for their candidates in the Democratic primaries, the moderates will win—maybe Gavin Newsom—and progressives will rally behind him because shit-lite isn’t as bad as shit, and I’ll be downvoted on Lemmy for advocating 3rd parties, and yet a centrist will be elected. People will talk about rank balloting and/or PPR, when such are against the 2-party state.
while many leftists want to abolish private property—“property is theft” and all of that (and besides “theft” of what? Theft of property? But property is theft.).
if you knew where that phrase originated, you could just go read the work where it originally appeared. if only there were a way for you to find out.
Surely the best course of action is somewhere between “free healthcare, housing and food” , and “rounding up undesirables to turn into chimney smoke!”
Some might consider free healthcare, housing, and food to be the centrist policy.
The rich get houses and mansions, but the poor get free government apartments.
Two-tiered health care will help the rich, those very devoted to paying for their own health, and/or those who take measures in their personal lives to maintain good health; while the rest get government-paid health care.
The rich and/or those so particular-they’d-pay-over-30%-of-their-income-on-food get to dine on filet mignon, $60-a-loaf bread, and drink wp:Civet coffee (rd); while the poor get at least 3000 calories a day plus their RDA of micronutrients.
They would be very incorrect, and politically ignorant, lol.
Do you think that such are necessarily leftist?
Do you not?
I don’t.
Interesting.
Left-wing politics are typically associated with popular or state control of major political and economic institutions.[18] According to emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark, supporters of left-wing politics “claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated.”[19] From the time of the Industrial Revolution, leftists have often supported trade unions.
That is an advocacy for leftism, which is another argument.
A wants to grow corn and soybeans on a patch of land because there will be a harvest in autumn; while B thinks hazelnuts are more lucrative and might even be less harmful to the environment; C says there’s enough food stored, so leave it fallow and maybe do some extraction, and thus save on costs and labor.
Presumably the leftist advocates that they should talk it out, and maybe reach an agreement, maybe use part of the land for each purpose.
The rightist might say the land should be divided by the three of them and see who competes better, and because each is doing what wt:thon wants, each will presumably give thons whole effort; nor does it negate voluntary cooperation: while many leftists want to abolish private property—“property is theft” and all of that (and besides “theft” of what? Theft of property? But property is theft.).
But again, free healthcare, housing, and food as a centrist, even liberal, policy doesn’t necessarily mean equal healthcare, housing, and food, just adequate, or adequate enough to curtail revolution. Presumably if all Russians and Chinese had adequate nutrition, places to sleep, and even basic health care (such as vaccines), neither Lenin nor Mao would have had much of a chance.
Presumably in the US relatively few starve, nor must be wet in the rain or freeze to death in the cold, and most got their covid-19 shots, hence it’s unlikely that the far left will take over the US anytime soon.
Yes, I can see it now:
2028, progressives will push for their candidates in the Democratic primaries, the moderates will win—maybe Gavin Newsom—and progressives will rally behind him because shit-lite isn’t as bad as shit, and I’ll be downvoted on Lemmy for advocating 3rd parties, and yet a centrist will be elected. People will talk about rank balloting and/or PPR, when such are against the 2-party state.
but I digress.
if you knew where that phrase originated, you could just go read the work where it originally appeared. if only there were a way for you to find out.
???