In his recent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Tony Norman details a recent account of five young men who were arrested by Pittsburgh police after a pellet gun “shooting spree.” Mr. Norman is quick to blame the manufacturers of such guns, as they “put massive profits ahead of young lives.” He reflects on the days of old when toy guns looked less realistic.
Norman’s line of logic is to be expected when one finds a writer who is more than happy to demonize capitalism and the right to bear arms in one fatal swoop. However, that is not just a shallow analysis of situations like these; it is a dangerous one.
If Mr. Norman truly cared about fixing the lives of troubled youths like these, he would move in favor of economic empowerment and perhaps place his concern for “young lives” ahead of his greater concern for “massive profits.” Those living in the poorest areas of Pittsburgh (and the rest of the country) should be given the same opportunities that the most fortunate of us already have. In short, I don’t blame toy gun manufacturers for the misfortunes of so many young Americans; I place the blame solely in the lap of governments.
In Pittsburgh, we could start by removing harsh criminal penalties for drug offenses. These laws have been shown to do more harm than good. Furthermore, they have been shown to have a disparate impact on minorities and those who are poor. As of 2010, black Americans are almost six times as likely as white Americans to be imprisoned. In addition, as reported by the Huffington Post in 2013, black Americans constitute 50% of the state and local prisoners incarcerated for drug crimes.
Each time that another black person is placed in prison because of a so-called “war on drugs,” it results another black child having to grow up without a father. Now with nearly three-fourths of all black children being born out of wedlock, we need to start rethinking what we are doing to future generations.
Secondly, if Mr. Norman cared so much about the development of young minds, he would move to place more power in the hands of students and parents in the public schooling system. By enacting school choice, the poorest Americans, who do not have the same luxuries that wealthy Americans would be able to opt out of the abysmal public school system.
Under the current system, children get stuck in underperforming school districts which, like every other facet of government, have no accountability to taxpayers. A voucher system would give consumers the right to decide where there money goes, and therefore, make teachers and schools compete for their patronage in the same manner that any other service provider does. This kind of solution would place quality over quantity and allow a sort of “marketplace of ideas” on which method is the best to educate children.
Lastly, if Mr. Norman truly cared about the worst off among us, he would speak out in favor of ending the minimum wage. The minimum wage is one of the most favorite political ploys of modern liberals. However, its negative effects are seen disproportionately by three groups: minorities, teenagers and non-skilled workers. These three groups, perhaps those most in need of extra money, are those which are most quickly cut out of the labor market when employers know they must cut costs. Rather than those individuals receiving the opportunity to perhaps work their way up and learn at a lesser rate, they are instead lectured by government that they are not permitted to contract at a wage less than what that government approves.
Mr. Norman, like so many others, has the best of intentions when he surmises solutions to the problems faced by troubled youth. However, as I have pointed out, it is only the forces of personal freedom and individual liberty which have the incredible power to do what governmental actors cannot.
