Even then, it tends to get deeper. And as for the protection from "harmful foreign ideas" that creates a collision between protecting rights of individuals and protecting national security... And I'm of the school that believes it is pointless to protect us from other ideologies. In open discussion, they succeed or fail on their own merit. Freedom of speech keeps revolutionaries using legal channels instead of violence. I'd limit the government's role on that to outlawing the direct advocation of violent overthrow or violent discourse.
As for the others... What does it mean for the government to provide healthcare or education? Should it universalize and nationalize them, make policies to incite market forces to improve them and make them available to all, or give public services to the very poor while allowing the well-off to choose their own in the private sector?
What purpose does the military have, an interventionist or domestic one?
These are the points where it gets more confusing.

I think in general people believe they know a violation of roles when they see it rather than having very specific criteria. That's what makes it so messy.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III