It's a basic view that profit is bad and exploitative. Therefore non profits are inherently good, as is government, while for profits are inherently bad. We see this all the time in health care discussions where insurance companies get slammed while competing gov't entitites are lauded.
The truth is that non profits are every bit as greedy, if not more, than for profits, and less accountable. And government is simply unaccountable.
Trying to use the views of those on the far far left to explain the views of those in the middle is not only off the mark, it's a bit stupid. It's like saying all conservatives think we should get rid of the government completely.
What so many of you seem to forget is that government is not this big boogeyman that created itself and is now the enemy of all hard working people. Government is the people deciding what should be done in a collective effort for the better of everyone. That in no way means that the government should run or control everything or that it should put such constraints on business as to make doing business impossible. However, when the people support things such as certain environmental standards, then it is the government's job to ensure that those standards are upheld, even if it becomes a small thorn in the side of business. Bottom line is that the people decide what and what not government will do for all of us.
The question is, as always, one of degree, but it is also one of scope. The question we are facing in the last 20-30 years has been not only IF government should do a given task, but at what level of government should it be accomplished.
If you look back to the original scope of the federal government, created by the constitution, the primary purpose was to provide a united front when it came to foreign interaction, to regulate disputes between the states, to create certain basic rights held by citizens of all the states, and to provide for projects that impact multiple states. All over actions were the reserve of the states, and whatever the states delegated to thier local organizational levels (counties, towns, parishes, etc).
What we see as part of the philosophy of the modern left, what I call the progressive statists, is that they see the scope of federal governance and governance in general, as far beyond what was intended.
In progressive, you see their desire to implement programs they see as benefical to all, and to require those they see as better off than a set point to pay for most of the programs.
In statist, you see the method they want to use. Government, in particular federal government, to implement thier programs, and force people to fund/go along with them.
The additon of the two also leads to a situation where proponents of the system want to create a dependent class, which would assure the policies enacted would remain in perpituity.