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.
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.