These are public goods (as opposed to the public good). The public good is a rather arbitrary idea.
Agreed. But then again it has to be. The interests of a society depends on that society. It’s values, traditions, culture, all of this forms the basis of deciding how to accommodate competing and conflicting claims. And it all changes over time.
Which is fine, just so long as to help the disadvantaged, you are not hurting me. And where do we draw the long as what constitutes a disadvantage? Is being in the minority a disadvantage? Is working a minumum wage job, and staying at a minimum wage job, a disadvantage?
What seems to be missing here is your account of obligation. Having all the rights that citizenship affords, comes with responsibilities. If, in redistributing wealth for example, libertarians feel disadvantaged, what sort of political obligation grounds their thinking? A liberal democrat has no problem defending the claim that as part of their responsibilities as a citizen they should be subject to a redistributive tax system.
What is in the best interests of the citizens? Certainly not a government deciding what is best for them! Isn’t an individual far better able to determine what is in his interest than a politician, acting to serve his own?
This neglects the important fact that politicians are elected officials who represent them in government. The politician’s decision is the interest of the citizen realized.
Because in reality, those who determine what is the best interest of society are really subjecting society to their own whims of what is best (or at least not the worst) for him. No rational person would act to their own detriment.
Either would any politician who wanted to get re-elected. If they don’t act according to their constituents interests, they get voted out. That’s why democracy works.