• Pat12@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    there allways is a danger that it could go against the peoples ideals or even their interests.

    isn’t this the same reasoning for govt though? politicians will say one thing for votes and do another thing. If anything it’s worse to trust a govt who will more likely go against people’s interests. At least an NGO has a stated aim.

    • neeeeDanke@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      not really. In an ideal democracy you could simply vote those people out in the next election . In a well working democracy there is only so much they can do before they are not reelected.

      The difference to NGOs is that in a democracy one person (ideally) has exactly one vote while your influence on non profits -especially when you are wealthy enought to afford your own- is mkreso connected to what you (can) donate, so how wealthy you are. In my opinion that makes relying on government more egalitarian whereas a system built on charities is more seceptable to oligarchigal structures.

      (I understand that in many places Governments are (very) currupt or not democratic to begin with and there are many NGOs that are democratic (or meybe just plain better for the interests of the people) compared to those governments. And in those cases these NGOs are -for now- obviously better then the government. But imo with a stable democracy the government is a fairer morer stable and more equal solution.