The BLM Effect

The death of George Floyd in May 2020 caused a widespread moral panic about racism and policing, which was commonly called the “Black Lives Matter” movement (BLM). Many local governments, especially in large cities, responded by reducing police activity in various ways.

See George Floyd and the Madness of Crowds.

In this essay, I will assess the effects of the BLM movement on mortality in the US. As expected by some of us, there was a big increase in the homicide rate in 2020.

Cause-of-death data are from the CDC. Note that most Hispanics are classified as “White” in the data. G7 homicide rates are from the World Bank.

As you can see, there was a large increase in the homicide rate immediately after the George Floyd incident. The increase was highest in the black population, who are the majority of homicide victims and offenders, despite being roughly 13% of the population.

The chart above shows the same data, in stacked format, so that you can see the total increase in the homicide rate.

The preceding chart shows the homicide deaths by race and year. The increase was highest in 2021, as you would expect from an event that occurred in the middle of 2020 and had long-term effects.

The preceding chart shows deaths by motor vehicle accidents during the same time period. There was also an increase in the death rate from traffic accidents, as you would expect from depolicing.

The preceding chart shows the excess deaths, calculated by subtracting the number of deaths in 2019 from the amount for each year after 2019. In total, there were 21,782 excess deaths from homicide during those four years, and 23,584 excess deaths from motor vehicle accidents, for a combined total of 45,366.

This is just a crude approximation, but it gives some idea of how many deaths were caused by BLM. Of course, we don’t know what would have happened otherwise, but it is reasonable to assume that the death rates for homicide and motor vehicle accidents would not have increased much, if at all. There could be other factors involved, such as illegal immigration, but the data fit the depolicing hypothesis very well.

I did not consider other causes of death, such as drug overdoses, which could also be affected by depolicing. We should also keep in mind the many victims who did not die, but suffered from injuries due to violence and motor vehicle accidents. There were other effects of the mass insanity, including rioting and looting in many cities. But the biggest effects were probably due to depolicing.

Some people will try to argue that the increased homicide rate was due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but that explanation does not fit the evidence. If the increase in homicide was due to Covid-19, we would expect to see a similar increase in other countries.

The preceding chart shows intentional homicide rates in G7 countries for 2016 to 2021. None of the other G7 countries had a big increase. Canada had an increase of roughly 7% between 2019 and 2020, which was partly due to an ongoing trend, and partly due to a single case of mass murder with 22 victims. Canada is also going through a similar moral mania about its native population (which has a much higher homicide offending rate) and is highly influenced by the United States. The higher homicide rate of the United States overall is mostly explained by racial demographics.

Human nature responds to incentives. We need the police to maintain public safety. Policing creates incentives that deter crime.

The BLM effect shows how mass irrationality, due to virtue signaling, has real-world consequences.

Comments

  1. Tangential to the blog topic, but I want to hear your thoughts on something. Part of what I like about your thinking is that you have a knack for taking what are thought to be intractable problems in philosophy and resolving them or showing them to be non-problems by thinking about them differently. I think you did a great job with that in your theory of knowledge work. To the point, what are your thoughts about the analytic/synthetic distinction? Meaningful or not? How does that distinction fit in (or not) with your theory of knowledge. If I thought about it for a while, I might be able to do it myself, but I'll outsource to you on this one lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, there is a distinction between claims that are true by definition and claims that are contingent on external reality in some way. That's a meaningful distinction, but it's not very important for a theory of knowledge.

      We could define logical, conceptual and representational claims as follows:

      Logical: truth or falsity depends only on logical relations. E.g. "Horses are horses."

      Conceptual: truth or falsity depends on conceptual relations. E.g. "Horses are mammals."

      Representational: truth or falsity depends on the relation of the claim to reality. E.g. "This is a horse."

      You could also define formal claims, such as the Pythagorean theorem, for which truth or falsity depends on a formal system, such as geometry. Its truth is a logical implication of the axioms of the system.

      That's a better way to think about it, instead of analytic | synthetic.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, that looks good to me. I think the weirdness with that distinction is that Kant (or others) tried to claim that logical truths were a form of a priori knowledge or something. Confusing formal knowledge with procedural knowledge perhaps? I noticed you edited your book to use Formal knowledge instead of Meta. Meta sounded cooler, but I think Formal expresses the idea better lol

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure exactly what Kant et al said. I know he used the analytic | synthetic distinction and the a priori | a posteriori distinction, and they were different distinctions. Like, he talked about synthetic a priori and analytic a priori, etc. I haven't really tried to figure it out, and I don't think it's worth doing.

      The confusion between procedural and formal knowledge has been a huge obstacle in philosophy.

      Yeah, "formal" is better. I also changed some of the terms to be more in-line with academic philosophy.

      Delete
  2. Aren't the covid lock down measures (and their effects) a confound? The lockdowns took millions of drivers off the road. Less car accidents in 2020 because of that. Covid policies caused businesses to fold, pushing more people into poverty (and desperation.) Not saying that this invalidates your hypothesis but there are several really big variables - especially economic ones (lack of income/inability to make an income) that happened at the same time as BLM.

    Also I just found this website and am so excited to find good reading somewhere! Found you using Yandex browser.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, thanks for the comment.
      Yeah, that is a confound. Unfortunately, historical experiments are always somewhat confounded. However, there is a partial control for that confound: other countries. In the book version, there is a chart that shows the homicide rates in other G7 countries during that period. I'm not sure why I didn't include it here -- probably because I didn't have the latest data, or because I added the MVA data and didn't want to make it too long. Wrt the MVA, you can see previous years in the chart: 2018, 2019. MVA did not decline in 2020; it went up.
      Yandex probably gives people less biased, or differently biased, search results. Google is not much use these days.
      I'll see if I have the data for that chart, and if so, I'll add it.

      Delete
    2. I added the chart with G7 homicide rates. It only goes up to 2021, because that's all the data available from the World Bank.

      Delete

Post a Comment