I’m your host, Michael Alan Prestwood and this is the
of the Weekly Wisdom Builder. The core research that informs the week’s TST Weekly Column.
This is the expanded story mode edition. I like to listen to these along with that week’s essay as part of my daily walks reflecting on journalism and life.
Let’s get started with the week’s informal author intro.
This week, I found myself returning to a question many of us are struggling with: when does law enforcement go too far, and where is the line?
I chose to focus on law enforcement—not as a political issue, but as a question of purpose. Law enforcement exists to serve justice, not replace it. When enforcement becomes more destructive than the crime it addresses, it violates the very reason law exists. Order without restraint is not strength; it’s authority forgetting why it exists at all.
With that introduction, let’s frame the week’s key idea.
This week, we explore Law Enforcement through the lens of Locke.
Now for this week’s 6 Weekly Crossroads. The goal, to blend and forge intersections into wisdom.
Supporting the effort are tidbits.
Each tidbit carries its own links and academic citations, allowing claims to be traced back to their original sources without overloading longer essays.
On the home page are the key ideas for each, the core takeaways are also available here, but this story mode is the only place to get the “rest of the story.”
Our first story.
To be clear.
That Critical Thinking Story,
A Philosophy Quote.
Looked at differently.
Hannah Arendt didn’t set out to excuse evil. She set out to understand it. While reporting on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the organizers of the Holocaust, she expected to find a monster—someone fueled by hatred or fanaticism. Instead, she found something more unsettling: a bureaucrat who insisted he was simply doing his job.
Eichmann did not see himself as evil. He did not experience his actions as moral choices at all. He followed procedures. He complied with orders. He avoided thinking about consequences. That absence—of reflection, of judgment, of personal responsibility—is what Arendt found most terrifying.
Her insight was not that evil is trivial, but that it can be ordinary. It emerges when people disengage from moral reasoning and outsource responsibility to systems, laws, or authority figures. In those moments, harm no longer requires malice. It only requires participation.
This is why Arendt’s warning still matters. When people say, “I was just following the law,” or “that’s not my responsibility,” they are not defending justice—they are abandoning it. Law and authority do not absolve moral responsibility; they test it.
Arendt reminds us that the most dangerous failures are not always loud or dramatic. They are quiet. Procedural. Routine. And once thinking stops, almost anything can be done in the name of order.
That Philosophy Quote,
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
The end.
A Science FAQ.
The central point is this.
Complex systems—whether biological, mechanical, social, or institutional—remain stable only when their responses scale appropriately to the problems they face. Proportionality is what allows a system to distinguish between small disturbances and serious threats. Without it, the system loses its ability to regulate itself.
In systems theory, feedback loops are essential. They allow a system to adjust, correct errors, and return to equilibrium. When responses are proportional, feedback dampens instability. When responses are excessive, feedback amplifies disruption. Overreaction turns minor inputs into major disturbances, pushing the system further from stability instead of restoring it.
This is how escalation begins. An overpowered response doesn’t resolve the original issue—it creates new ones. Those new problems then demand even stronger responses, producing a runaway failure mode. At that point, the system is no longer solving problems; it is reacting to its own reactions. Control is replaced by momentum.
Hierarchy and scale matter here. Healthy systems prioritize. They reserve the strongest responses for the most serious threats. When proportionality is removed, hierarchy collapses. Every problem is treated as an emergency, and emergencies lose meaning. The system can no longer tell the difference between noise and danger.
This is why proportionality is not just a moral principle—it’s a structural one. Systems that cannot scale their responses eventually collapse, fragment, or turn violent. Not because they are evil, but because they are unstable. Even if you remove ethics entirely from the discussion, the conclusion is the same: systems that overreact cannot survive.
That Science FAQ,
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
The end.
A Philosophy FAQ.
In simple terms.
I’m not going to answer that here as I’m perfectly happy letting the courts decide this one. However, let’s explore the ethics of it philosophically.
In the American legal system, there is a saying:
“treat like people alike.”
This principle dates back to Aristotle and his “Nicomachean Ethics.” He argued that distributive justice involves allocating goods and privileges fairly among individuals based on their merits, needs, and contributions. He believed that similar individuals should be treated similarly, and unequal treatment should only be given when there are relevant differences. Trump supporters might argue that his presidency is a relevant difference, while others might disagree.
In the context of the American justice system, distributive justice aims to treat individuals equally under the law, regardless of background, race, gender, or social status. This means no one is above the law.
How does a lack of remorse play into sentencing? Aristotle argued that remorse is crucial in determining punishment. It indicates a willingness to take responsibility and the potential for moral growth, supporting a more lenient punishment. Conversely, a lack of remorse suggests a potential for repeat offenses, warranting more severe punishment. He saw attacking the justice system as an aggravating factor, demonstrating disrespect for the rule of law.
The question isn’t just what the courts decide — it’s what kind of society we want to be. When we treat like people alike, we affirm the idea that justice is blind not to truth, but to privilege.
That Philosophy FAQ,
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
The end.
Critical thinking almost always boils down to epistemology, and here, that means the Idea of Ideas.
A Critical Thinking FAQ.
Briefly.
Humans rely on rules because rules simplify decision-making. In complex societies, laws provide structure and predictability. But when rules are treated as moral substitutes rather than tools, people stop thinking and start deferring. This is where rule-following quietly replaces moral reasoning.
One core mind trap at work is authority bias—the tendency to assume that decisions made by an authority figure or system are inherently correct. When combined with moral outsourcing, individuals shift responsibility away from themselves and onto the rulebook. If the rule allows it, the thinking goes, then it must be right. Judgment is no longer required.
This is how context disappears. Absolutist thinking flattens moral landscapes into binaries: legal or illegal, allowed or forbidden. Nuance, intent, proportionality, and harm are pushed aside. Complex moral hierarchies collapse into slogans like “rules are rules,” which feel firm but explain nothing.
The danger is not ignorance—it’s abdication. When people say “I’m just following the law,” they are not making a moral claim; they are avoiding one. As Hannah Arendt famously observed in her analysis of bureaucratic evil, systems don’t require monstrous individuals—only people willing to stop judging their own actions.
Rules are necessary. Judgment is indispensable. When judgment is surrendered to authority, responsibility dissolves—and history shows us exactly where that leads.
That Critical Thinking FAQ,
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
The end.
A History FAQ.
That takeaway is this.
No, studies show that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born population. Contrary to popular belief and widespread stereotypes, the answer is a resounding no. A wealth of research and studies firmly support this fact. Areas with higher populations of undocumented immigrants often have lower crime rates. This counterintuitive truth cuts through the common narrative, revealing a different story about immigration and crime.
In fact, statistical analysis and law enforcement data consistently show that in communities with higher populations of undocumented immigrants, crime rates often remain the same or even decrease. This finding isn’t just a statistical anomaly; it’s a consistent trend observed across various studies and regions, indicating that the presence of undocumented immigrants does not fuel higher crime rates.
Moreover, the misconception that the border problem exacerbates criminal activity overlooks the reality that the majority of undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. seeking better opportunities for themselves and their families, not to engage in unlawful behavior. Their primary aim is to work, contribute to society, and live peacefully, aspirations that mirror those of native citizens.
That History FAQ,
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
The end.
That’s it for this week!
Join us again next week. A new set of ideas lands on TouchstoneTruth Wednesdays at 3 PM PST, and emailed Thursdays.
If you don’t subscribe, please visit TouchstoneTruth.com and click the Subscribe button.
Thanks for listening.
The end.
