"NGO" implies that there IS a gonernment.
Only by the existence of a government would there be NGO.
People do ask why there is a government doing governing,
people do ask what function a government serves,
and people do ask how a government should be.
However, rare do people ask why there is a NGO,
at what scale the NGOs work, and why do we need NGOs other than a government.
Providing that NGOs are much more closer to the "original position" than a governmental fact,
it seems easy for people to take NGOs for granted.
But maybe, NGOs, other than a uniting Big Brother, reveal a reality of pluralism.
For I just said to Ben that none of the ideal models of a state,
such as "Respubica," "Utophia," is consistent with pluralism,
I have to point out that NGOs might stand for pluralism nearly perfect.
A civil society could be without a government but a government could never be without a civil society,
unless there's no different interests between every single individual in the country it governs.
By a negative definition, a NGO is "what is not,"
not "what is."
Interesting. A substance with more realization is so
defined BY another
less realized stuff.
society,not the civil society that can not be without an
authority among.
For the government governs by simplified the whole
reality of the people,
while the civil society simply presents it.
