On Bottom Up and Top Down Thinking - Part 17

17. Ethics and custom

The bottom up thinker knows that it’s natural for us to distinguish truth from falsehood. So, he comes to understand that it’s also natural for us to distinguish right conduct from wrong. Thus, we develop a sense of Ethics.

The bottom up thinker sees that there’s a benefit to all in behaving right, as long as others do the same. So, it’s in the long term interests of each of us to seek to do what is right. Furthermore, it’s natural for each of us, as we gain experience in life, to expand and refine our ideas of right and wrong. And so, to enlarge our understanding of the obligations, which constitute the core of civilized behaviour.

The bottom up thinker comes to recognize that many of the moral rules passed down from ancient times are good and valid. For example, Confucius’ Golden Rule: don’t do to others what you wouldn’t like done to you. It’s also possible to derive some core rules from the Judaeo-Christian Ten Commandments. For example: Don’t commit aggressions. Keep your freely made promises. Don’t steal. Don’t lie or mislead.

But he recognizes, also, that many customs (mores) or traditions of particular cultures or religions – not eating pork, or not drinking alcohol, for example – are not part of the core ethics of civilized behaviour. For anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the religion or culture, these moral rules are optional.

The top down thinker, on the other hand, often likes to pontificate about how people should behave. He usually bases his ideas on religion, or on the traditions and morality which are customary in a particular culture. He wants to enforce obedience to them, as well. But top down thinkers too often fail to live up to the obligations they parrot. Worse, they fail to condemn those that routinely disregard those same obligations.

On Bottom Up and Top Down Thinking - Parts 15/16

15. Education and indoctrination

The bottom up thinker sees education as being exactly what the word's Latin root says: leading out the potential of each individual. And he knows that assimilating new facts and ideas into our mental picture of reality is natural to human beings. That is, learning is a bottom up process. This becomes obvious to him when he watches young children exploring their surroundings, or hears them incessantly asking “Why?”

Furthermore, he sees the goal of education as to teach people how to learn. For anyone, who has mastered the art of learning new things from the bottom up, has the tools to enable them to continue to learn for the rest of their lives. (In the same way, someone who learned to read through phonics has the tools to continue to learn new words for the rest of their lives.) Thus, bottom up education will tend to produce bottom up thinkers.

The top down thinker, on the other hand, sees education, at best, as a process of preparing an individual for life in a particular culture. So, like the look-say trainer, the top down educator looks to stuff his pupils’ minds with information. He seeks to impart top down rote knowledge, rather than the tools which enable bottom up learning. And so, he is likely to turn his pupils into top down thinkers like him.

Worse, the top down educator will usually seek to instil into his pupils the current politically correct views. Thus, he will often discard truth and honesty in favour of lies, misdirection and promotion of Causes. So, top down schooling easily descends even further into indoctrination.

16. Information and propaganda

It isn’t just in our early years that we are all subjected to a barrage of top down disinformation. Watch any TV news programme – preferably with the sound off! – or skim through any newspaper. You will quickly see that virtually everything today’s media spout is no more than a promotion for some Cause or other.

And most of it seems intended to be scary. Our CO2 emissions will fry us all! The oil is running out! Putin is about to start world war three! The government needs to spy on our e-mails so it can “protect” us! Every Muslim you see on the street is a probable terrorist! It’s hard to avoid agreeing with H.L.Mencken that all this is a ruse “to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

The bottom up thinker wants to be informed. So, he doesn’t always shut the media out entirely. But, with practice, he finds it increasingly easy to tell when what ought to be information has sunk into lies and propaganda. And he gives such stuff – and those that parrot it – no respect at all.

In contrast, the top down thinker is too often emotionally swayed by propaganda. And he becomes inclined to support whatever Cause or Causes it promotes.

On Bottom Up and Top Down Thinking - Part 14

14. Empowerment and democracy

The bottom up thinker wants to empower everyone. That is, he wants each individual to have maximum possible power over his own life. He sees peace, honesty, justice and respect for human rights as the only valid reasons to restrict anyone’s freedom in any way. Beyond this, he desires government of each person, by that person, for that person.

In contrast, top down thinkers advocate and admire a charade they call democracy; or in US-speak, Demahcracy. They like to set democracy up on a pedestal, and to make of it an idol to be worshipped.

In democracy, individuals may vote on which of a number of criminal gangs (political parties) they wish to direct a state for the time being. Then, there is a more or less complicated process of totting up the votes. This process determines which gang (or gangs) will have licence to “legally” oppress and exploit everyone for the next several years.

It’s obvious that this system entirely ignores the wishes of the minority. It does nothing at all for those who are alienated from politics, and feel that none of the political parties have any concern for them. And, the way the system operates, it usually ends up ignoring the desires of the majority, too.

And yet, top down thinkers talk of democracy as if it was (in Abraham Lincoln’s words) “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” But to them, the word “people” is singular – really meaning “the populace.” So, they believe that democracy delivers a government that reflects “the will of the people.” That elected politicians in some way “represent” this will. And that this gives the rulers an all but divine right to do what they want to the ruled, without concern or consideration for rights or anything else.

The bottom up thinker, on the other hand, is mindful of Benjamin Franklin’s pithy saying: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” He knows that there is no such thing as “the will of the people.” For, indeed, only individual people – that is, persons – have wills. He knows that it’s all but impossible for a dishonest, collectivist politician to represent, in any meaningful way, any honest, individual human being.

Furthermore, he understands that many people who vote – perhaps, even, a majority – do so, not for the party they want most, but for the one they hate least. And he knows that any individual’s vote in any election that matters is utterly worthless. It’s rare enough for a politician to be elected by a margin of only one vote. But further; when was the last time one vote made a discernible difference to any policy or legislation?

It gets worse. On many if not most issues, all the parties and politicians want the same. What they want is more and more state power. So, far from empowering the individual, democracy falsely makes it appear legitimate to subordinate innocent people to the Causes currently favoured by those in power and their hangers-on.

It’s worse yet. For, on fuller consideration, the bottom up thinker sees that a vote for any of the criminal gangs – or at least, for one that has a realistic chance of winning – is an act of cowardly aggression. It’s an assault against everyone who has been, is being, or will be, harmed by the policies of that gang. It’s morally equivalent to punching on the nose, hard, people you have never even met; and then running away.

Thus, democracy divides. It inexorably pulls societies apart. The victims of bad policies feel harshly treated, and become disaffected. They come to view politics and politicians with contempt and loathing. And, slowly but surely, they lose all fellow feeling with those that support the criminal gangs by voting for them. Yet, top down thinkers agonize over why the “social cohesion,” which they expect to see among the populace, is increasingly becoming unglued.

On Bottom Up and Top Down Thinking - Parts 12/13

12. Property and sovereignty

The bottom up thinker finds property to be one of the most important of all rights. For property is the expression of our mastery over our surroundings.

The bottom up thinker understands that all justly owned property comes, ultimately, from someone expending time and effort, either to create the property, to improve it, or to earn enough to trade for it. So for the great majority of us, who don’t receive big legacies from rich parents or uncles, all our property comes from our own time and effort, which we have expended in order to gain it. So, property is life. That is why property rights are so important. That’s why they mustn’t be violated. Ever.

The top down thinker, though, envisages a different kind of mastery over our surroundings. That is, sovereignty. In his view, some individual or group – commonly called a sovereign, whether it’s a monarch, a parliament, a politburo, or some other ruling élite – has mastery, not only over a particular area of land, but over the human individuals in that area too.

To him, this ruling élite, the sovereign, is supreme, and it has moral privileges that others do not. All others within its territory are no more than its subjects – literally meaning, “thrown under.” According to the theory of the 16th century Frenchman Jean Bodin, among many other privileges the sovereign is entitled to make laws to bind its subjects. It is entitled to make wars. And it is entitled to tax its subjects.

So, the top down thinker has scant respect for individuals’ property rights. Or, indeed, for any other individual rights or freedoms. At best, he sees them as concessions by the sovereign, which it can take back at any time. And so, he finds it OK to subject people to whatever the ruling élite wishes, however arbitrary or unjust.

13. Government and the state

The bottom up thinker echoes James Madison’s dictum: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” So, he thinks of government as at best a necessary evil. And he wants to restrict its power to the absolute minimum. It must do no more than assure the peace, justice and respect for rights that are necessary for any civilization to be workable.

In his view, government is no more than an institution created by a group of people joining together to defend their security, freedom and property. So, he typically sees the valid functions of government as just three. One, an honest system of civil and criminal law. Two, a means to bring criminals to justice. And three, defence against military attack.

What of the state, as opposed to government? The bottom up thinker understands that the state is the apparatus that enforces the sovereignty or hegemony of the ruling élite in an area. And after consideration, he agrees with Albert Jay Nock’s assessment that the state “invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation.”

Furthermore, he is well aware of the many ways, in which the state gives its officials moral privileges over mere subjects. For example, if you or I extorted money from people like the taxation system does, would it be seen as theft or worse? Or if you or I premeditatedly killed an innocent person like Jean Charles de Menezes, would it be seen as murder?

Thus, the bottom up thinker clearly discerns the huge difference between bottom up government and the top down state.

The top down thinker, on the other hand, makes no great distinction between government and the state. He sees the state – or government – as an end and a good in itself. He wants to see its power expanded and its institutions perpetuated.

Further, most top down thinkers don’t object to state officials having moral privileges over and above the general population. And they like the state to be very active. In particular, they approve of the state making lots of new and stricter laws, and lots of new and more onerous taxes. Many of them are also eager to see the state making war.

And top down thinkers are themselves attracted to seek and to take jobs with the state. Once in those jobs, they will always look to increase the activities and power of the state, and thus their own political power and wealth as individuals. This is one of the main reasons why politicians behave the way they do.

On Bottom Up and Top Down Thinking - Parts 10/11

10. Rights and aspirations

The bottom up thinker values human rights. In his view, anyone who behaves as a civilized human being deserves to be treated as a civilized human being. And that means that he has certain rights.

The bottom up thinker finds that most of the “human rights” listed in, for example, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights are good and valid. Though such lists often also contain a few claimed “rights” that are not real.

He divides the valid rights into a number of groups. First, basic rights like life (in the sense of not being murdered), dignity, property and security of person. This group also includes negative rights such as not being tortured, inhumanly treated, coerced into marriage, or arrested or detained without charge. Second, rights which must never be violated arbitrarily; that is, without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. For example, no interference with privacy, home or correspondence.

The third group of rights are the fundamental freedoms (or, as I call them, rights of non-impedance). These include: freedom of thought, religion, opinion, speech and peaceful assembly; the right to seek work; and the rights of free movement and residence. And fourth, what I will call procedural rights, such as equality before the law, fair and public trials and innocence until proven guilty.

The bottom up thinker also recognizes that there are many important rights, which are not to be found in human rights literature today. Among these, he may list: No stalking or routine surveillance. No arbitrary or random search. A right to be told the truth. A right to pursue happiness. And a right to say “No” – that is, to refuse to take part in others’ schemes.

There are, however, also several good sounding ideals (often dubbed “positive rights,” though I prefer to call them aspirations), which are not real rights. This is because to implement them requires violating other people’s rights, for example by forcing them to pay for what they don’t need or want. Such faux “rights” include social security, a guaranteed minimum standard of living, and “free” education.

The top down thinker, on the other hand, often talks a good game about human rights. But in reality, he doesn’t care about others’ rights at all. He may support, for example, cameras on every street corner, or routine interception of people’s e-mails. He may want to control even the smallest details of others’ lives. He may agitate to restrict freedom of speech or assembly. He may support policies that damage the economy, or make it harder for people to find work. He may seek to re-distribute wealth and power from the honest and productive to himself and his cronies. Or to the lazy, or to the dishonest, or to the politically connected. And he wants, of course, to impose heavy taxation to pay for his evil schemes.

11. Freedom and subjection

The bottom up thinker knows, deep down, that he himself is naturally good. So, he sees others – real criminals, of course, excepted – as naturally good, too. And he sees criminal acts, and acts that harm others or violate their rights, as aberrations. They are uncivilized conduct.

Because of this, the bottom up thinker envisions a presumption of freedom as the default in all situations. That is, as long as an individual doesn’t harm others, doesn’t intend any crime and doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, then he must always be free to choose and to act as he wishes. And when there is a need to act with care – for example, when driving a car – the bottom up thinker wants each person to make his own judgements, and to take full responsibility for his own conduct.

In contrast, the top down thinker tends to find many, if not most, people to be naturally bad. This may perhaps, even, include himself. He sees little or no value in individual freedom. He likes to see people controlled, and subjected to authority and discipline. He favours, for example, arbitrary (and ever decreasing) speed and drink-driving limits on the roads. And he wants them harshly policed, so it’s easy to get people, and to force them to toe the line. So, the top down thinker is a subjection thinker.

On Bottom Up and Top Down Thinking - Parts 8/9

8. Moral equality and faux equality

Hearing much talk of “equality,” the bottom up thinker asks himself: In what sense are all human beings equal? Pondering this question, he comes to understand that human beings are all morally equal. What is right for one to do, he deduces, is right for another to do in a similar situation, and vice versa. This, he sees, is the essential idea of the so called rule of law.

Thus, the bottom up thinker prizes the rule of law. And he rejects claims by some individuals or groups of moral or legal privileges over others.

In contrast, the top down thinker favours some loosely defined “equality,” like social equality, economic equality or equality of opportunity. And he wants to enforce his faux ideal of “equality,” even when that creates far worse inequalities. For example, in the name of economic “equality,” he wants some to have the political power to heavily tax others.

9. Law and legislation

The bottom up thinker recognizes that a system of law and justice is valuable to all good people. As long, of course, as that system is entirely honest, and includes strong safeguards against harming the innocent.

He understands that no-one is perfect. For all of us do, on occasions, cause damage to others. And it’s to the long term benefit of all good people to have a system of objective justice (civil law). Such a system will enable individuals or groups to claim restitution, if they need to, from those who have unjustly harmed them.

Furthermore, he understands that certain acts, fuelled by greed, malice, recklessness or other states of “guilty mind” (mens rea), are criminal. That is, those that perpetrate such acts have gone beyond the bounds of civilization. And thus a system of criminal law, which can punish those that do such acts, is a long term benefit to all civilized people. First, because individuals genuinely dangerous to others can be locked away where they can’t do any more damage. And second, because punishment can discourage both the criminal and others from repeating the crime.

But the bottom up thinker also agrees with John Locke when he says: “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” He understands Friedrich Hayek’s vital distinction between law and legislation. He sees that, while an honest system of law is valuable to good people, legislation made by politicians is often a huge negative to them. And he is well aware of Edmund Burke’s famous truism: “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

In contrast, the top down thinker sees law as a tool, to be used by those in power to achieve their ends. So, legislation made by politicians is to be enforced, whether or not it’s right or just. And it doesn’t matter whether the motives behind legislation are good or bad, or whether it has bad consequences for innocent people.

So, the top down thinker finds it OK to subject people to political agendas hostile to them. Or to enrich or otherwise favour certain groups at the expense of others. Or to expand bureaucracy. Or to create perverse incentives to encourage people to support a Cause. Or to hurt people they don’t like, or who refuse to follow the latest politically correct fad. Or to victimize those who have earned success through their own efforts. Or merely for the sake of ordering people around.

And he often wants to make lots of tough new regulations, to bind people in an ever tightening noose. He will use any excuse to levy fines or penalties, or worse. He wants to subject people to close surveillance, too. He watches people like a hawk. And “zero tolerance” is his watchword. He wants to single out, and to punish, anyone who deviates from his faux ideal of behaviour in any way, however small.

Thus, the top down thinker likes to promote, lobby for or enforce bad, tyrannical legislation. And he is happy to allow legal or moral privileges to those in positions of power. For example, when police kill an innocent person like Jean Charles de Menezes, he doesn’t want to see them prosecuted for their acts.

On Bottom Up and Top Down Thinking - Parts 6/7

6. Justice and social justice

The bottom up thinker sees justice as a fair balance of the interests of each individual against the interests of others. Why else do we talk of “the scales of justice?” Pondering this, he asks questions like: Should some be allowed to behave badly towards others, and to get away with it? And, do some deserve to be treated badly, even though they treat others well? The bottom up thinker comes to answer both these questions in the negative.

So, he concludes that each individual deserves to be treated, over the long term and in the round, as he treats others. And therefore that innocent people, who don’t harm other innocent people, deserve not to be harmed. Furthermore, those that do harm to innocents cannot complain if they themselves suffer harm in return. As Richard Hooker put it in the 16th century: “If I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should show greater measure of love to me than they have by me showed unto them.”

The bottom up thinker also sees that justice of this kind is a public good. That is, it brings a benefit to all. For it gives an incentive for everyone to behave towards others with respect and concern, rather than without.

The top down thinker, on the other hand, has little or no concern for individual human beings. And therefore, he has no interest in individual justice. Instead, he parrots some good sounding Cause like “social justice.” He uses his Cause as an excuse to bias the scales of justice, and to harm and oppress innocent people who have done no wrong to anyone. So, as seen by the bottom up thinker, the top down thinker’s desire for “social justice” actually creates injustice.

7. Deserts and needs

The bottom up thinker wants to see each individual treated as he deserves. So, in his view, anyone who fairly and honestly earns good things has earned the right to enjoy them. “From each according to his abilities,” declares the bottom up thinker; “to each according to his deserts.”

He will, of course, be charitable towards those who are unable to earn satisfaction of their needs for reasons outside their control. After all, if you aren’t willing to help others when they are in need, you can’t reasonably expect them to help you when you’re the one in trouble. But he doesn’t feel that he owes any charity to those whose failure to earn is due to their own laziness or dishonesty.

And what if an individual treats others badly? If, say, he is violent or fraudulent? Or if he promotes, supports or enforces policies that harm innocent people? Or if he commits, or supports, violations of human rights? Can such an individual have any complaint if his victims – and their friends – refuse to help him? The bottom up thinker answers: Surely not. Should Jews feel obliged to help nazis?

The top down thinker, on the other hand, believes in Karl Marx’s aphorism: “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” He wants to break the relationship between what individuals deserve and what they receive. He wants to re-distribute good things from those who earn them to those that don’t. So, he actively seeks to impose injustice on innocent people.