There are two abiding beliefs that would, if one bothered to think about it, defy political dogma and yet embody it.  The first is that a person, convicted of a crime, will be punished and, once he has completed his punishment, has “paid his dues to society.”  In other words, he gets to start again with a clean slate to rejoin society as a productive, law-abiding member.

The other is that public safety trumps individual desires, a primary duty of government to be accomplished at the expense of individual rights. This is a core tension in the Constitution, which protects individual civil rights from the tyranny of the majority, while giving the government the police power to regulate society for the welfare of the masses.

If seen from a distance, the police power is paramount up to the point where it touches the individual rights secured.  Up close, the edges look frayed.

In Amherst County, Virginia, a new trick has been enacted that implicates both of these concerns in a disturbing way. Via Eugene Volokh:

The County issues business licenses for the privilege of doing business or exercising a trade, profession, occupation, vocation, calling, or activity in the County. The [Amherst County Commissioner of Revenue] may withdraw the privilege of doing business or exercising a trade, profession, occupation, vocation, calling, or activity by revoking a business license if the licensee: …

Has been convicted in any court of a felony or of any crime or offense involving moral turpitude under the laws of any state, or of the United States, or knowingly employs in the business conducted under such license, as agent, servant, or employee, any person who has been convicted in any court of a felony or of any crime or offense involving moral turpitude.

The regulation of business, whether by occupational licensing or merely the general ability to carry on a business, is characterized as “a privilege.” Does this mean that a person’s ability to own a business, generally (which means without regard to specific occupations/professions that have unusual demands), is a governmental gift?

In 1923, the Supreme Court held that this was among the “liberty interests” that the Constitution secured for each of us.

While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Since then, government has nitpicked its way into every fiber of our being, mostly with the blessing of the public. When it comes to the liberty to open a lawful business, employ people, serve one’s customers and achieve whatever level of success one can, there wouldn’t seem to be too much controversy.

Oh sure, we’ve grown to expect government to require a pro forma approval for every inch of the effort, as a tax subterfuge, and to require usually over-burdensome rules because something once fell off a shelf and hit a child’s head, requiring every store owner thereafter to put in an expensive anti-stuff falling off a shelf onto a child’s head system. But we’re cool with it, because no one wants to see a child hurt, and visceral reactions are so much easier than hard thought.

So Amherst County, Virginia, has come up with a trick, the purpose of which is to enable it to pick and choose which ex-cons are worthy of living within its borders. You see, if they can dictate who can work, who can eat, they leave the ex-con with two choices. Return to crime or go elsewhere. Adios, you felons.

The natives applaud the government that protects them. After all, our risk tolerance continues to diminish, and why shouldn’t it? Why should we risk having our children around a person who once committed a bad crime? So sorry, ex-con, but our children come first. Actually, the good people come first, but it sounds better if we tie it to the children.

Sounds crazy? We have already done this to people on the sex offender registries, sold to us as a way to keep mythical crazed child molesters from raping our babies, since we’re informed by passionate advocates that they are incapable of not raping upon the mere sight of a youngster, and then watched it spread in two unrelated directions.

The first is that we wanted to keep them away from our schools, because that’s where critical masses of children are. Which then morphed into anywhere a child was, or possibly could be, which covered everywhere except adult prisons. Weird how that happened.

The second was that the sex offender registry, created for those uncontrollable miscreants, morphed into a laundry list of any offense that could theoretically involve something icky. Pee against a wall, which is a lot like exposing one’s genitals for fun and profit, which is a lot like raping children. Well, it worked, so don’t question the connection or logic.

Wrap all of this up in a nation that regulates everything, with a criminal component to ensure compliance, and it’s “but for the grace of God,” assuming deities are your thing, and you can well see where the Amherst County ordinance comes in the back door to protect the good people, defined as those who have yet to get caught, from the bad people, defined as those who were caught and are too risky to our safety to worthy of tolerating.

Then again, in deepest, darkest, Virginia, the “grace of God” still has some very strong pull on the hearts and minds of the public.  And really, who gives a damn whether an ex-con has paid his debt to society? That’s for St. Peter to decide in the afterlife, whether or not they deserve to be forgiven.  Nobody has a right to live in God’s country, Amherst County.