Science and understanding cant decide what you want and how much of it, it can only help you decide how to get what you want.
Disagree. It's the realm of philosophy at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean it is subjective. We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people.
If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights, which is something already agreed upon by society; as is the goal of ensuring rights be equally enforced for each person, that they be respected as they should be - just starting from that is a pretty solid base that would result in real changes and is already consistent with societies desires.
If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.
You keep moving the goal posts. We have enough of a starting point with the UN charter of rights and freedoms.
> If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.
It's the case that for a lot of things we know the best policies for many things. More competent government would go by what they suggest, will of the people be damned.
To be honest, I don't really understand your position. It seemed like you were claiming that Society has already decided what's best and now you say that the will of the people be damned. Who is the 'we' that knows what's best and how do you contrast that with the will of the people.
>We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people.
>If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights which is something already agreed upon by society
The only way that I can make sense of it is that the 'we' you talk about is simply people that hold your belief system. It seems like you're saying that a competent government would simply do what you want and steamroll anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I get that the idea of a tyrannical government that supports your personal views sounds attractive. You might even think you know what's best for other people. The conceit with this approach is that you don't actually know what other people want, just what you want.
Those things are not mutually exclusive. You absolutely seem to be moving the goalposts. You say your introducing points but each response is "what about the next issue down the line" i.e. moving the goalposts.
> To be honest, I don't really understand your position.
That there are best practices for every field of government, and they should be followed instead of politicians going by what they feel.
You're focusing on semantics and being for example "well define best", and I just don't see that as being a particularly productive avenue of conservation.
You want to try and make the point that everything is subjective, I guess, but it isn't. Again, there are best practices. Best as in the dictionary definition of the word. Context would be, as said, ensuring the UN charter of rights and freedoms is being implemented correctly (should I expect a request to define "correctly"?) It wouldn't be tyranny for a government to rule according to expert advice and suggestion, it would be competence.
If you really want to take the discussion into arguing about different people's definitions for best (or 'reasonable', or whichever word quote me saying), then we don't have anything further to discuss. It's not a discussion I find value in or have an interest in having.
This is generally how conversations or debates go, when people don't immediately agree with you. Asking what about X? Moving the goalposts is quite different. If I said I will believe you if you if you gave an example of Y, then when you showed me Y, asked for Y+Z. In this conversation, I havent set any goals, just asked questions and made counterpoints.
In general think maybe you are misunderstanding me, I absolutely agree there is a best way to go about a given thing. I dont see how you can think what goverment should be doing isnt particularly relevant.
I personally think that many articles of the UN declaration of human rights are garbage, and would oppose my government implementing it in practice.
Again, government competence depends on what you want the government to do.
My fundamental point was people don't agree on what the government should do. It sounds like you have walked this back, so I dont think we have much left to talk about.
We aren't going to hash out an agreement of what governments Should do over HN.
I'm not, I just don't see value in the way you're approaching this.
I'm just going to leave it at that.
Cheers.