After a recent discussion with a politically opposed (hard right) acquaintance is that neither full socialisation (left) nor full privatisation (right) are desirable options. My considered impression is that there's a middle ground - where you have to understand *where* privatisation makes sense, and where it's counter-productive, and socialisation makes much better sense. I think revolves around the sense of 'calling' among practitioners (or lack thereof).... 1/n

For example, I don't think that medical practitioners (doctors/nurses) or educators or scientists are motivated primarily by profit. They're motivated by pursuing the thing they've studied for many years in hopes of understanding/making the world better.

Some other professions can be calllings, but mere 'jobs' don't tend to appeal to its practitioners inherently. They're a thing that needs doing, but it's financial reward that motivates. It's a continuum.

2/n

The real problem we see is that gov'ts tend to either be 100% privatisation (e.g. the idiotic coalition currently 'running/ruining' Aotearoa), or 100% socialising (well we haven't had that here in a couple generations, as both main parties are largely working in service to business interests). But we need a progressive gov't that understands where the market works best & where socialisation does. I can think of a few examples of where these 'splits' occur.

3/n