NJ Libertarian Blog
Imported from NJ Libertarian News from the published feed
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
In the United States, most medical research is influenced, directed, and funded by two powerful forces: the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry. Together, they shape not only what gets studied, but what ultimately reaches patients. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the country, while major pharmaceutical companies provide enormous private funding for drug development and clinical trials. This relationship has created a system where public institutions and private corporations effectively control the direction of modern medicine.
The NIH primarily funds early stage research. Scientists apply for grants to study disease mechanisms, identify targets for treatment, and test initial concepts. This work is carried out in universities, teaching hospitals, and research institutes across the country. Because the NIH controls such a large portion of grant funding, it also influences what research topics are prioritized. Areas that align with mainstream models of disease and treatment, especially drug based solutions, are more likely to receive consistent funding than alternative or non pharmaceutical approaches.
Pharmaceutical companies step in once a discovery shows commercial potential. They fund later stage studies, large scale clinical trials, and regulatory approval processes. These stages are tremendously expensive and are rarely paid for by government grants alone. This means that if a potential therapy does not fit a profitable business model, it is far less likely to advance, even if it shows promise. As a result, the majority of treatments that reach the market are designed around patentable drugs rather than low-cost lifestyle, nutritional, or mechanical interventions.
- Details
- Written by: David J. Bier
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
David J. Bier is the Director of Immigration Studies and occupies The Selz Foundation Chair in Immigration Policy. He is an expert on legal immigration, border security, and interior enforcement. |
Originally published on Cato.org, republished under Creative Commons agreement.
On December 4, the Department of Justice (DOJ) disseminated a memorandum to all federal prosecutors creating a strategy for arresting and charging individuals supposedly aligned with “Antifa.” The memo requires DOJ to investigate and identify the “most serious, most readily provable” crimes committed by potential targets, including those with “extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders.”
Specifically, the document defines domestic terrorism broadly to include “doxing” and “impeding” immigration and other law enforcement. Doxing is not specifically defined, but the memo references calls to require Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to give their names and operate unmasked. Individuals who donate to organizations that “impede” or “dox” will be investigated and deemed to have supported “domestic terrorism.”
Therefore, it is crucial to understand that ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) consider people who follow DHS and ICE agents to observe, record, or protest their operations as engaging in “impeding.” DHS has a systematic policy of threatening people who follow ICE or DHS agents to record their activities with detentions, arrests, and violence, and agents have already chased, detained, arrested, charged, struck, and shot at people who follow them.
The purpose of this post is to establish that these incidents are not isolated overreach by individual agents, but rather, an official, nationwide policy of intimidating and threatening people who attempt to observe and record DHS operations. This matters legally because courts are more likely to enjoin an official policy rather than impose some new requirements to stop sporadic, uncoordinated actions by individual agents.
The Right to Follow, Record, Report, and Protest
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
For decades, Americans have been told that government-mandated health insurance would make care more affordable and accessible. Yet the opposite has happened. Premiums, deductibles, and overall healthcare spending have all skyrocketed, while patients face fewer options and more red tape. Instead of promoting freedom and affordability, government mandates have inflated costs and eroded individual choice.
A government mandate forces individuals and employers to purchase insurance that meets specific requirements set by politicians and bureaucrats, not consumers. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), for example, required all plans to include a long list of “essential benefits.” While this was meant to ensure comprehensive coverage, it eliminated flexibility and drove up costs. A healthy 25-year-old who only wanted basic catastrophic coverage suddenly had to buy an expensive plan covering maternity care, mental health services, and more; even if they would never use them.
These one-size-fits-all rules distort the natural balance of supply and demand. Insurance companies, forced to comply with costly mandates, raise premiums to cover the added risk. Employers, burdened by expensive group plans, cut benefits or shift costs to employees. Meanwhile, administrative complexity explodes. Doctors and insurers must hire entire departments to navigate compliance paperwork, coding systems, and billing regulations; a bureaucratic tangle that adds billions to national healthcare spending without improving care.
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
In 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—a piece of legislation that reshaped America’s relationship with drugs and, unintentionally or not, reshaped its future. The Act created the now-familiar system of “schedules,” ranking substances based on their perceived potential for abuse and medical value. On paper, it looked like a scientific effort to organize drug policy. In reality, it was a political maneuver designed to target Nixon’s greatest adversaries: the anti-war movement and Black Americans.
At the height of the Vietnam War, Nixon faced a nation in turmoil. The anti-war protests were loud, youth-driven, and politically inconvenient. His administration saw an opportunity to weaken the movement through criminalization. By associating marijuana with anti-war “hippies” and heroin with Black communities, the administration could justify raids, arrests, and media smear campaigns—all under the guise of law enforcement. One of Nixon’s top aides, John Ehrlichman, later admitted, “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.”
To do this effectively, the government needed a legal mechanism, and the Controlled Substances Act provided it. Substances like cannabis, LSD, and psilocybin (the active compound in psychedelic mushrooms) were placed in Schedule I—the strictest classification—alongside heroin. Schedule I drugs were declared to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, making research nearly impossible. Scientists who wanted to study potential health benefits faced enormous bureaucratic barriers, expensive licensing, and social stigma.
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
For decades, Americans were told to trust the Food Pyramid. Introduced in the early 1990s by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the pyramid was marketed as the gold standard of healthy eating. Its neat design suggested simplicity: a wide base of bread, pasta, and grains; moderate layers of fruits, vegetables, and proteins; and a small tip for fats, oils, and sweets. It looked like an easy-to-follow blueprint for health. But behind that tidy image lay a web of corporate influence, government policy, and agricultural lobbying that prioritized profits over public well-being. What was sold as nutrition guidance was, in many ways, a governmentsponsored marketing campaign for big agriculture.
The roots of the Food Pyramid lie in the powerful lobbying forces that shaped it. The USDA is not just a health agency; it is also responsible for promoting American agriculture. That dual role created an obvious conflict of interest. Grain producers, dairy farmers, and processed food manufacturers had immense sway over the final recommendations. It’s no coincidence that the base of the pyramid—the foods Americans were encouraged to consume most—was filled with carbohydrates from wheat, corn, and rice. These crops represent some of the most heavily subsidized and mass-produced commodities in the United States. By telling Americans to consume six to eleven servings of bread, cereal, rice, or pasta daily, the government wasn’t just promoting “health”; it was ensuring steady demand for the agricultural industry.
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
The Affordable Care Act, commonly called “Obamacare,” was “designed” to expand healthcare coverage to millions of Americans, but it also created major financial opportunities for insurance companies. At its core, the law tyrannically required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty (until the federal mandate penalty was reduced to zero in 2019). This mandate, paired with subsidies for lower-income individuals, brought millions of new customers into the insurance market—many of whom were previously uninsured. For insurance companies, this meant an immediate and sustained surge in policyholders, which translated into billions in new premium revenue.
Another financial advantage came from the creation of government-run online marketplaces where consumers shop for plans. While the ACA imposed certain regulations—such as requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions—it also guaranteed that insurers would have a central, highly visible platform to market their products to millions of potential customers. The plan comparisons often increased competition, but it also pushed more people to purchase coverage rather than skip it altogether, again expanding insurers’ customer base.
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
There can be no true liberty or personal freedom if you are not in control of what goes into your own body. Every individual is born with natural rights—chief among them is bodily autonomy. The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), a foundational concept in libertarian philosophy, prohibits the use of force or coercion against others or their property. So how does this apply to medical freedom?
While I won't rehash the intense government pressure and mandates that occurred during the pandemic, it’s important to recognize that many of those policies still cast a shadow today. To be clear, this is not an anti-vaccine message. If you choose to receive a vaccine, that is entirely your decision. It’s your body. Likewise, if you choose not to get vaccinated, that too is your right. Medical decisions should remain between you, your doctor, your partner—or just you alone, if that’s what you prefer. It is, after all, your body.
- Details
- Written by: Bruno Pereira
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Bruno Pereira is the Chair of the New Jersey Libertarian Party. |
Over the past decade, near-zero interest rate policies have wreaked havoc on safe savings and forced millions of Americans into high-risk investments. Rather than allowing market forces to determine fair returns for savers and retirees, government intervention has suppressed natural yields, misallocated capital, and enriched a select few at the expense of the working class. As a libertarian, I firmly believe that this distortion of the free market is not only unjust—it is morally corrupt and fundamentally unethical, undermining individual liberty and long-term economic prosperity.
- Details
- Written by: William F Sihr
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the “Declaration of Independence” wrote that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This core philosophy, that would be used as both a rallying cry for our struggle against the British monarchy, as well as the inspiration for our Constitution literally says that “all men are created equal.” This beautiful and inspiring statement is not what the Founding Fathers meant. Women were not universally granted voting rights in the United States until 1920, and people of color, whether or not legally freed from their servitude, were not seen as equals. Even ‘whiteness’ is an oversimplification, as the Founders did not see all Europeans as equally ‘white’. A harsh truth that immigrants from Eastern Europe, Italy and Ireland had to contend with when they came to our shores.
- Details
- Written by: William F Sihr
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
Franklin Delano Roosevelt is a name that lives in infamy within libertarian circles. With a Presidency spanning 3 terms, a World War and the record for the greatest number of Executive Orders ever issued, there is perhaps no other President that embodies such an antithesis to what we hold dear. Some go so far as to call him the President who brought us socialism, and you wouldn’t necessarily be mistaken. With his New Deal FDR instituted many socialist policies and greatly expanded the role of the State. However, if you ask a socialist about FDR, especially those around in the 30s and 40s they often spoke very ill of him. They argued that he cherry-picked the key positives in their plan in order to bolster his own new-liberal agenda (and yes, there is a difference between neo-liberal and socialism) without making the necessary systemic changes to actually “better” America. Or, in other words, he implemented surface level policies just enough to empower himself and his fellows, without actually changing how things really worked in America. From Social Security, the WPA and ending the Gold Standard FDR was able to secure the loyalty of disenfranchised Americans who were desperate for change and the wealthy financial elites who were looking for protection, all the while pulling the rug out from under American socialist efforts. Even today, our nation’s ideology and institutions seem almost stitched together with FRD’s New Deal, despite them being at odds and causing many issues, be they budgetary, ideologically or legally. Yet they remain in effect because they were reimagined as the “American Ideal”. En masse, most Americans experience no cognitive dissonance when they say “socialism is bad” while standing in line for a check from Uncle Sam.
- Details
- Written by: Lana Leguia
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
New Jersey Libertarian Party members,
I am excited at the prospects for our candidates this year. Reflecting on my performance in 2024, I can confidently say that I did the best I could with the limited resources I had and the internal and external barriers I had to break through. I can also confidently say that given everything I have learned, the connections I have made and the experience I gained - there is plenty I could have done better. I am far from perfect. It is no secret that my priorities as a board member have always been what is best for the New Jersey Libertarian Party’s integrity and what is best for our candidates. Everything I have done up to this point and everything I plan to do in the future will be to elevate the NJLP and its candidates.
- Details
- Written by: Steve Friedlander
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Steve has been a libertarian Party member since the founding. He resides in Mercer County. |
The Libertarian Party needs to broaden its appeal in order to attract a wider spectrum of voters. It can do this by embracing classical liberal principles that are an integral part of America’s tradition. Its messaging should convey the idea that voting Libertarian is a vote for these time-honored principles. Even though most people may not be familiar with the term, classical liberal principles are quintessentially American and should appeal to a broad segment of the population.
- Classical liberalism is a tradition that grew out of the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries and was articulated by thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith among others. Their ideas of individual freedom, limited government, free trade, and democracy were embraced by America’s founding fathers and embodied in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. Modern day libertarians should be “squarely in the great classical liberal tradition that built the United States and bestowed on us the American heritage of individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government, and a free-market economy.”[1]
- Details
- Written by: Joseph Dunsay
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
July is mad pride month. This has personal meaning to me, because I am a mad person, a person who has been through the mental health system. Mad people in New Jersey face systematic discrimination from the state that can deprive them of their freedom without due process. They can be incarcerated and forcibly injected with drugs without ever being charged with a crime. In my experience, psychiatric wards are more comfortable than prisons and have better food, but they still have locked doors that prevent psychiatric patients from seeing loved ones or going about their daily lives. The drugs given to mad people involuntarily also have unpleasant side effects. Some of them can be quite dangerous. We should fight for the rights of mad people to live free of this coercive psychiatric system.
- Details
- Written by: Christopher G. Russomanno
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
At the time of the founding of the United States of America, and at various times thereafter, there was much heated debate over whether the new nation should have a central or national bank. The founders had seen what havoc was wrought by the Bank of England, a central bank, and the detrimental effects it had on that nation and its empire by a devaluation of its currency which enabled the never-ending stream of wars in which it was involved. The founders also had a vivid memory of what happened when the government run colonial bank created rampant inflation by printing an infinite amount of paper money. Inflation is a hidden tax which robs people of the value of their money by devaluing the currency. This is used to pay for the government’s debts. Accordingly, there is no provision in the constitution for the creation of a central/national bank. Therefore, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) system of banking in the United States of America is unconstitutional because of its ability to print unlimited amounts of fiat currency, or paper money, thereby robbing people of the value of their dollar.
In determining the constitutionality of a central bank, with the ability to create unlimited amounts of paper currency, we can look to the constitution, our founding document, itself: “Article I Section 8 says that, The Congress shall have the power ... To coin money, regulate the value thereof ... and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures…To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.”1 In Pieces of Eight, Edwin Vieira explains in detail why the founders used such explicit language when writing this part of the constitution: