Twitter/X

Sabrdance, writing from a public-administration background, frames the public…

2026-07-30 · 20:42 UTC ·@sabrdance ·1 min read

Brief

Sabrdance, drawing on a public-administration perspective, contrasts a liberal account of the public good (benefit to the public) with an economic account (aggregation of preferences) and highlights Charles Fain Lehman’s claim that appeals to a “common good” exclude antisocial individualist or relativist claims, though the state may be limited in realizing ideals.

Why it matters

Sabrdance, writing from a public-administration background, frames the public good as split between a liberal account (the public good is what is done for the benefit of the public) and an economic account (the public good as an aggregation of individual preferences).

Key details

  • Charles Fain Lehman argues that invoking a “common good” or “public interest” primarily functions to exclude certain arguments: if a common good exists, no right to engage in antisocial behavior that harms society can be claimed; absence of a common good cannot justify political action; democratic deliberation decides what benefits society, and appeals to antisocial individualism or relativism are incoherent within the American account of politics (while also noting the state is often not competent to achieve ideal ends).
Source evidence

One day I should do something longer about it. But a brief note today:

I come from public administration, which is split between two accounts of the public good: the liberal (the public good is that which is done for the benefit of the public) and the economic (aggregation...

Charles Fain Lehman (@CharlesFLehman)

imo, the use of talking about a "common good" or "public interest" is mostly negative, i.e. it lets you exclude certain classes of argument.

If there is a common good, there can't be a "right" to engage in antisocial behavior that harms society. Nor can the absence of a common good be the basis for political action. Appeals to such rights or arguments from such relativism are quite popular and common, so it's good to exclude them from the get-go!

That doesn't mean we can't then argue about what is good for society. That's the whole point of democratic deliberation, and why we live in a republic. Nor does it mean the state is competent to effectuate ideal ends. It often is not.

Rather, it just means that appeals to antisocial individualism or relativism aren't coherent — they don't fit within the American account of politics.

— https://nitter.net/CharlesFLehman/status/2082816769064837608#m