We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Somebody asked me this weekend what is meant my the common legal term "in the state's interest."
When you think about it, it does sound like a term from feudal times; an odd turn of phrase for a democratic republic. On the other hand, in socialist or communist countries, they use the term "the peoples' interest" as a euphemism for the same thing.
My problem with this basic legal concept, when I think about it a little with my small brain, is this: What happens when The State becomes a special interest of its own, looming over all other interests? Well, James Madison et al anticipated all of that, didn't they? Very shrewd and wise old dead guys with unfashionable ethnicities.
If the term has any meaning at all, it is one of two things.
It stands for those interests which everyone shares. Having a law against murder, for instance, serves everyone, because nobody wants to be murdered.
It stands for the the interests that are peculiar to those who are in government. Jury nullification, for instance, distinctly restricts the powers of government, and thus goes against this second concept of state's interest.
This boils down to what the term state is intended to mean in the phrase state's interest. It is either the entire body of people, or it is the subset of the populace that forms the government.