And what constitutes the public good?
It’s like pornography—you know it when you see it. The streets you drive on, the regulatory agencies that make sure your water is drinkable, health care (sorry if you live in the US), public radio, etc. These are public goods.
How can a single entity (government being the only thing that can affect society in its entirety) come up with a solution that benefits everyone and hampers no one?
It can’t. But liberal democrats don’t make the claim that it will. There will always be disadvantaged groups in society, and the government will constantly work to correct these disadvantages.
That, it would seem to me, is the ideal good for the public. Help the greatest number of people? What if the benefits are negligable and the hinderences great? Is that the ethically best solution for the public good? I’m not trying to attack the issue here, I’m just curious how “the idea of the public good” can manage the reality of these issues.
Helping the greatest number of people is not the same as the public good. The greatest good for the greatest number is a utilitarian calculus that would surely lead to catastrophe if the government used it as a policy guide.
The public good means serving the interest of the citizens.