Civic Amnesia and Systemic Negligence: Reclaiming Fiduciary Integrity Through Civic Literacy Reform

📘 POLICY BRIEF: The Invisible Mechanisms of Governance

Thesis

Government mechanisms like the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) are presented as open democratic tools—but the failure to educate the public about them constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty. This systemic negligence contributes directly to the decline of civic engagement, and must be remedied through mandated civic literacy initiatives and procedural reforms.

Core Argument Breakdown

1. The Existence of the Mechanism Is Not Enough

   "A right that cannot be exercised is a right denied."

   While the Federal Register and NPRMs technically allow public participation, they are hidden in plain sight—accessible only to the legally literate, institutionally initiated, or those with legal counsel.

   Fact: 79% of U.S. adults cannot name a single thing about the rulemaking process (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2023).

2. Lack of Education = Systemic Disenfranchisement

   The government fails to discharge its duty of care by not providing adequate, proactive education about mechanisms like NPRMs, advisory boards, or public comment periods.

   • Fiduciary Law Principles: Duty to inform and duty of care are violated.
   • Substantive Due Process: Under the 5th and 14th Amendments, meaningful access requires meaningful awareness.

3. Negligence by Design, Not Accident

   The defense of plausible deniability is undermined by decades of research pointing to civic illiteracy and institutional exclusion.

   Legal Analogy: In fiduciary law, failure to provide information a reasonable person would need to make an informed decision constitutes negligence—even without intent (see SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, 375 U.S. 180 (1963)).

Legal Framework: Fiduciary Duty and Duty to Inform

Principle	Definition	Violation Example
Duty of Care	Public officials must act prudently in the interests of constituents.	Failing to inform about public participation tools (NPRMs, FOIA, advisory boards).
Duty to Inform	Fiduciaries must proactively disclose information needed for sound decision-making.	Lack of civic education about rulemaking or regulatory input.
Duty of Loyalty	The fiduciary must not put institutional self-interest above public interest.	Designing systems only insiders can navigate.

Policy Recommendations

• Mandated Civic Literacy Curriculum (K–12 & Adult): Include NPRMs, public commenting, FOIA, and regulatory processes in all public school systems.
• Plain-Language Government Communication Act (Amendment): Require agencies to publish all rulemaking opportunities in plain English, across multiple platforms (SMS, email, social, print).
• Duty-of-Care Enforcement Mechanism: Allow legal remedies for the public when procedural access is denied by omission or institutional complexity.
• Executive Order for Civic Awareness Implementation: Mandate that all federal agencies submit yearly reports detailing public outreach on rulemaking participation.

Call to Action

“We do not lack civic tools—we lack civic literacy.”

If you are reading this and are surprised to learn about NPRMs, then you are already a victim of a silent disenfranchisement. This is not your fault—but it is your fight. Our government owes us more than mechanisms. It owes us education, clarity, and access.

• That fiduciary standards be applied to every facet of governance;
• That transparency include outreach, not just open files;
• That ignorance is no longer the default setting handed to each generation.

References

• Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. S. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.
• SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, 375 U.S. 180 (1963).
• United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• U.S. Department of Education. (2022). Civic Learning and Engagement in Democracy.
• Annenberg Public Policy Center. (2023). Annual Civics Knowledge Survey.

© 2025 Jeremy Crochetiere. All rights reserved.

Reimagining Power: A Holistic Framework to Reclaim Public Trust and Transform Governance

By Jeebus | APA Style | Policy & Education Reform

Abstract

This paper introduces the Holistic Education Framework as a tool for transforming civic understanding, rebuilding trust in governance, and resisting industrial-government capture. Combining emotional resonance, Socratic critical inquiry, and linguistic-psychological persuasion (NLP), this model seeks to empower the public through conscious engagement, legal awareness, and ethical activism.

Introduction

Have you ever felt like decisions were being made for you, not by you? Have you questioned whether public policy truly reflects the people’s voice? As industrial monopolies align with governmental power, citizens are treated as economic units rather than sovereign stakeholders (Chomsky & Herman, 1988). This paper explores how such dynamics undermine constitutional and fiduciary integrity and proposes a new holistic model for public empowerment.

Systemic Overview and Legal Context

• Resource Hoarding & Monopolization — Anti-competitive practices enabled by policy design and deregulation (OECD, 2004).
• Regulatory Capture — Private entities controlling the mechanisms meant to regulate them (Mills, 1956).
• Manufactured Consent — Public manipulation through controlled narratives and emotional triggers (Chomsky & Herman, 1988).
• Legal Breaches — Violations of fiduciary law, constitutional principles, and international human rights (Transparency International, 2020; United Nations, 1948).

The Holistic Education Framework

1. Emotional Resonance

Imagine a family losing their home due to inflation caused by policy failures. Their pain isn’t just economic—it’s personal, generational. Stories like these humanize abstract injustice, enabling collective empathy and motivation.

2. Critical Thinking (Socratic Method)

Why do we allow those in power to write their own rules? What systems discourage public scrutiny? By questioning assumptions, citizens are encouraged to uncover the truth and envision alternatives.

3. Linguistic/Psychological Framing (NLP)

Imagine a future where laws serve the people, not corporations. Reframing civic despair as an opportunity for reform invites hope and collective ownership of change.

Policy Recommendations

• Transparency Mandates — Require full disclosure of lobbying activities and regulatory influence.
• Fiduciary Law Enforcement — Civil/criminal penalties for violations of public trust.
• Civic Literacy Campaigns — Integrate the Holistic Framework into education systems to empower citizens.
• Human Rights Audits — Policies evaluated through the lens of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948).

Conclusion: A Call to Action

This is a call to the thinkers, the educators, and the concerned citizens. We must transform how we learn, how we govern, and how we engage. The Holistic Education Framework is not just an academic model—it is a movement. It begins with awareness, demands accountability, and culminates in the reclamation of agency.

References

• Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. S. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.
• Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.
• OECD. (2004). OECD principles of corporate governance. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264015999-en
• Transparency International. (2020). Global corruption report. https://www.transparency.org/en/publications/global-corruption-report
• United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Mind Map (XML-Style Outline)

<HolisticEducationFramework>

  <EmotionalResonance>

    <Storytelling/>

    <EmpathyTriggers/>

    <Imagery/>

  </EmotionalResonance>

  <CriticalThinking>

    <SocraticQuestioning/>

    <Reflection/>

    <PerspectiveIntegration/>

  </CriticalThinking>

  <LinguisticFraming>

    <Anchoring>Imagine a world where...</Anchoring>

    <Reframing/>

    <InclusiveLanguage/>

  </LinguisticFraming>

  <Applications>

    <Governance>

      <Transparency/>

      <FiduciaryAccountability/>

    </Governance>

    <Education>

      <CurriculumIntegration/>

      <CivicLiteracy/>

    </Education>

  </Applications>

</HolisticEducationFramework>

    

Conspiracy by Acquiescence

A Call for Justice in the Face of Systemic Inaction

Conspiracy does not always take shape through backroom deals or signed agreements. It often thrives in the silence of duty-bound officials, in the indifference of courts, and in the institutional neglect of those who should know better. This is the heart of what we must recognize as conspiracy by acquiescence.

When state actors—judges, agencies, law enforcement—fail to act where there is a clear legal and moral obligation, they become more than negligent. They become complicit. Their inaction may fulfill the very requirements of a conspiracy, where a "meeting of the minds" is found not in dialogue, but in deliberate inaction.

Legal and Ethical Foundations

In both civil rights law and criminal law, courts have acknowledged that an actor who knowingly permits injustice may be just as culpable as one who orchestrates it. Terms such as willful blindness, deliberate indifference, and failure to intervene provide precedent for holding such individuals accountable.

“When silence is weaponized by those with the power to speak, inaction becomes complicity.”

The Coordinated Silence

Imagine a scenario where a child protection agency falsifies evidence, a judge dismisses exculpatory proof, and a prosecutor proceeds with impunity. No emails, no calls, no formal agreements. But together, their neglect and apathy form a chain—an unspoken alliance of systemic harm. This is conspiracy by acquiescence.

Why This Matters

As citizens, advocates, and stewards of justice, we must expose and challenge this quiet form of collaboration. We must expand our understanding of complicity to include not only those who act but those who fail to act—when they had the duty, power, and opportunity to intervene.

This is a call for justice. A call to name and prosecute conspiracy not just in speech or planning, but in silence and omission.

© 2025 Jeebus. All rights reserved. | Truth is a duty. Justice is an action.

The Cycle of Injustice and the Hegelian Dialectic

The Cycle of Injustice and the Hegelian Dialectic: Systemic Control, Manufactured Crisis, and the Erosion of Dignity

Introduction: When the System Is the Architect of Crisis

In the United States today, the widening gap between the powerful and the vulnerable is not merely the result of neglect or incompetence. When we scrutinize the persistent cycles of harm—across criminal justice, healthcare, housing, and public policy—through the philosophical lens of the Hegelian dialectic, a deeper, more unsettling pattern emerges. The crises we endure and the “solutions” we are offered may not be accidental but are potentially engineered to maintain control, dependency, and the status quo.

I. The Hegelian Dialectic: Problem, Reaction, Solution

The Hegelian dialectic, conceived by philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, describes a triadic process: Thesis (an existing condition) gives rise to Antithesis (its contradiction), and the tension between the two is resolved by Synthesis (a new condition). In the context of modern governance and policy, this is often simplified to “problem–reaction–solution.”

• Manufactured Problem (Thesis): Systemic policies or conditions are created or allowed to persist, generating crises—such as housing shortages, mass incarceration, or healthcare dependency.
• Public Reaction (Antithesis): The population, suffering under these conditions, demands relief, protection, or reform.
• Pre-Engineered Solution (Synthesis): Authorities introduce solutions that appear to address the crisis but, in reality, increase control, regulation, or dependency—reinforcing existing power structures.

II. Systemic Short-Sightedness and the Cobra Effect

Across American institutions, we see Band-Aid solutions that treat symptoms rather than root causes. This “Cobra Effect”—where well-intentioned interventions create perverse incentives and worsen the problem—feeds directly into the dialectical process:

• Justice: Mass incarceration is justified as crime control but perpetuates cycles of recidivism and social fragmentation.
• Healthcare: Over-prescription of drugs like Suboxone in jails creates new dependencies, trapping individuals in cycles of addiction and criminalization.
• Homelessness: Billions spent on temporary relief sustain a “homelessness industrial complex,” while root causes like affordable housing and mental health go unaddressed.
• Housing Policy: Restrictive zoning, excessive taxes, and bureaucratic barriers exclude the poor, while voucher programs and shelters come with strings attached or repayment demands.
• Nonprofit Sector: Billions flow to agencies and 501(c) organizations, but with little transparency or measurable change, fueling suspicion of fraud and mismanagement.

These mechanisms create a perpetual state of crisis, justifying ever-increasing regulation, surveillance, and bureaucratic expansion.

III. The Illusion of Help, the Reality of Control

What appears as help is often a means of maintaining control. Solutions that only manage symptoms keep populations dependent on agencies and institutions, stifling genuine empowerment and systemic change. The cycle of “problem–reaction–solution” becomes a tool for legitimizing authority, normalizing the erosion of rights, and pacifying dissent.

For those living through these cycles—such as individuals experiencing homelessness for years—the system’s failures are not theoretical. They are daily realities marked by indignity, neglect, and the absence of true opportunity or justice.

IV. The Betrayal of Duty and the Erosion of Dignity

Dignity is an unalienable right. When institutions addict, exploit, or dehumanize, they violate the foundational principles of justice and public trust. The betrayal is especially grave when perpetrated by the state, under the guise of policy or public safety. Leaders who perpetuate these cycles are not merely incompetent—they are complicit in structural violence.

Conclusion: Breaking the Dialectic, Restoring Justice

If a self-taught observer can see these patterns, surely those in power can as well. When they do not act, it is not ignorance—it is negligence, dereliction of duty, and a profound moral failing. The cycle of injustice will persist until institutions confront root causes, anticipate unintended consequences, and prioritize human dignity above all.

• Overhauling harmful laws and policies based on evidence, equity, and civil liberties.
• Ending iatrogenic harm and bureaucratic neglect in all public systems.
• Oversight rooted in compassion, transparency, and accountability.
• Education and empowerment for those most affected, so their voices shape the solutions.

A Band-Aid does not heal—it conceals. The dialectic of control must be broken if we are to restore dignity, justice, and authentic agency to all.

Epitaph
Dignity is not a privilege—it is a birthright.
May future generations remember not how we punished the broken,
but how we dared to restore them.

References:
Hegel, G.W.F. “Phenomenology of Spirit”
“The Cobra Effect: Unintended Consequences in Policy Interventions”
“Manufacturing Consent” by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
Suboxone Addiction in Correctional Facilities – Clinical & Ethical Concerns
NORML & Drug Policy Alliance: History of Cannabis Criminalization