There were recent reports that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going to attempt to ban trans fat.  From a personal standpoint, I believe that trans fats are generally harmful to people’s health and they should be avoided as best as possible.  With that said, I am also a libertarian who believes in voluntary choice.

There are so many things wrong with this, it is hard to know where to start.

First, how did the FDA ever get the power to do something like this.  This whole thing provides a perfect example of where the government has gone completely wrong.  The FDA should not have the arbitrary power to create new laws and regulations.  This is the same with any of the other agencies of the government.

That is why I support the Write the Laws Act, sponsored by DownsizeDC.org.  Congress should not be delegating their authority to other bureaucrats, who are basically completely unaccountable.  If a terrible law is going to be passed, it should at least be done by the people who supposedly represent you in Congress.

Second, this is obviously a moral outrage for anyone who has a libertarian streak.  It doesn’t matter if trans fat is harmful.  Smoking can be harmful too.  Drinking alcohol can be harmful.  Eating too much pasta can be harmful.  Skydiving can be harmful.  This doesn’t mean any of this should be banned.  Consenting adults should be able to do what they want as long as they are not infringing on others.

Third, supporting this FDA move could be really dangerous in setting a future precedent.  In the article linked, there is one particular sentence that really caught my attention.  It says, “Trans fat is widely considered the worst kind for your heart, even worse than saturated fat, which can also contribute to heart disease.”

This is just terrible science and the government and the establishment are full of junk science.  While I agree that trans fat is bad, saturated fat is not.  In fact, saturated fat is quite beneficial and plays a vital role in keeping the human body healthy.  I specifically try to eat foods high in saturated fat for the benefits.

If you disagree with me on saturated fat, that is your right to do so.  But are you going to tell the FDA to ban saturated fat next?  Don’t try to shove your faulty science down my throat.

And this leads to point number four, which is, who gets to decide?  Why do the bureaucrats at the FDA get to decide what I can and can’t put into my body?  What makes them so special?  In fact, they have an incentive to help their friends who lobby for this junk science, which often benefits pharmaceutical companies, certain food industries, etc.  Who gets to decide what is healthy and what is not?  The bureaucrats have already decided that saturated fat is bad for you and, in my opinion, they are absolutely wrong.  The information they put out on some things is not just wrong, but the opposite of right.

In conclusion, if you think it is unhealthy to eat food with trans fat and you want to avoid it, then don’t buy it and don’t eat.  But we should never advocate the use of force to impose our ways on others.  That should only be done through persuasion.

Libertarians are often accused of not caring about the poor.  People not well versed in libertarianism, and even some who are, like to portray libertarians as wanting a dog-eat-dog world, where only the strongest survive.  But ironically, it is a libertarian society where the weak can survive and are most likely to prosper.

Also ironically, for those who like to support government solutions as the answer to our societal problems, you are the ones who are devastating the weak and the poor, whether intentional or not.

Big government kills.  Some things are obvious.  We can see direct killings when it comes to wars and other attacks, such as drone bombings.  This is the government killing people directly.

There is also indirect killing.  One example is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  The FDA provides false assurance for many drugs that can be quite dangerous.  At the same time, the FDA will keep some drugs, sometimes potentially life-saving drugs, off of the market for years.  The drugs cannot be made available to the public until the FDA approves it, making sure their own backsides are covered.  Meanwhile, people die waiting for the drug to be approved.

In addition, you don’t know how many potentially life-saving drugs never come to the market because it is not worth the expense of getting FDA approval.

But I was also reminded this week of another way that government kills, although indirectly.  There was a devastating typhoon (basically a hurricane to Americans) that struck the Philippines.  The death toll is estimated to be at least 10,000, but it is impossible to tell right now due to the destruction.  People there will probably continue to die due to dehydration, hunger, disease and all of the other related problems from the devastation.

If a similar storm hit the U.S. in an area with a similar population, there is no question that you would see death and destruction.  But it is unlikely that the death toll would hit anywhere near 10,000.  So what does this have to do with government?

The reason that a place like the Philippines is more devastated when a storm like this hits, is simply because it is a poorer place.  The construction of houses and buildings is not nearly as good in general.  In addition, it is harder for people to escape the storm when they are really poor.  I do acknowledge that it is easier to go inland in the U.S. as compared to a place like the Philippines that is all islands.  But still, a lack of wealth means less mobility for people.

Now some might say that the better construction in the U.S. is because of the building codes.  Some would actually credit government with the better construction.  But people who cite this have everything completely backwards.

The only reason the U.S. is able to have stricter building codes is because it is a wealthier country.  It is a long history of relatively free markets and strong property rights that have led to the great wealth.  Two centuries of savings and capital investment have led to this great wealth.

If the government in the Philippines were to enact building codes as strict as in the U.S., then either most people wouldn’t follow the law or else most people would be living without any shelter.  It isn’t that people don’t want stronger houses to live in.  It is just that most people simply cannot afford it.

There are any number of examples where big government leads to death and destruction.  This storm that hit the Philippines, which is basically still a third-world country with some modernization in the big cities, showed a good example of how poverty can lead to death.

I contend that a libertarian society would be a very compassionate society, aside from the fact that aggressive force would not be allowed, even by government.  I contend that a libertarian society, in which property rights were respected and free association was allowed, would lead to greater prosperity and far less poverty.  It would mean a better life for most people and it would lessen the tragedy we see in this world.

There was an article recently about a boy in 4th grade who was not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.  The teacher actually grabbed the student’s arm, telling him to put his hand over his heart.

One of the best ways to defeat something politically is to make it the subject of jokes and laughter.  So it is good news for lovers of liberty that Obamacare, along with its infamous website healthcare.gov, is the laughingstock of the country right now.

At the Country Music Awards, Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood spent over a minute on stage making fun of Obamacare and the website.  They finish it off singing a little tune about the slowness of the site and how 6 people have signed up.  The crowd was mostly laughing and clapping, although I think there were a few that didn’t appreciate the humor.

Of course, if this little skit had been put on at the Grammys or Academy Awards, I don’t think the response would have been quite the same.

But Obamacare is a major theme of the late-night comedy shows.  It is just too easy to make fun of right now.

Meanwhile, Obama has just come out with an apology to the American people.  He said, “It means a lot to them.  And it’s scary to them.  And I am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me.  We’ve got to work hard to make sure that we hear them and that we’re going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

This is actually quite remarkable, when Obama was going around lying just a few days ago.  First he lied about people being able to keep their health insurance when Obamacare was being promoted a few years ago.  Then he lied a few days ago about his first lie.  He was trying to convince people that he never assured people they could keep their current plan, even though he is on camera saying it many times.  And now he is apologizing for his false assurances, which just a few days ago he was saying he never gave.

This is a complete train wreck and I couldn’t be happier about it.  And what is now a joke will become anger on the part of the American people.  We can make fun of the terrible website right now.  But wait until middle class Americans, who are already struggling to pay their bills, have to fork over hundreds of dollars a month for a lousy insurance plan that probably doesn’t even cover that much.

This is good news.  I still think there is a chance that Obamacare could be repealed.  Obama backed down on Syria.  He just backed down about his original lies.  If the political pressure is strong enough, we could see Obamacare go down in flames.  That would be a victory for liberty.

Some people who don’t follow politics much might not even be aware that there were elections across the country on November 5, 2013.  Aside from electing politicians, the voters also got to decide on many state ballot measures.  The results are interesting to look at, just to see the pulse of the country.  You can get a decent idea of what happened here.

In Colorado, there were 11 counties that voted on the issue of secession.  5 out of the 11 counties voted in favor of it, or at least in favor of pursuing it further.  This does not mean these 5 counties will secede.  It means it can be pursued further.  It would be a secession from the state of Colorado, not from the U.S.

Regardless though, the fact that 5 counties had a majority vote favoring the idea of secession is a good step in the right direction for libertarians.

Another positive thing for libertarians is that  a few cities in Main and Michigan had ballot measures to legalize the possession of marijuana.  The voters approved the measures.  Again, it might be more symbolic than anything at this point, but it is still a good sign of a shifting of opinion towards drug legalization.

On the bad side, New Jersey voters approved (with about 61%) an increase of the state minimum wage to $8.25 per hour, which is $1 more than the federal minimum wage.

On the issue of minimum wage, this is something where America needs a lot of work still.  This isn’t just a question of economic ignorance.  It is a question of freedom of association.

Minimum wage laws are preventing people from voluntarily associating.  Starting in January, if someone wants to offer work to another person for $8 per hour, then he will be in violation of the law in New Jersey.  It is prohibited by the state.  The person hiring (the employer) is willing to pay $8 per hour.  The person who needs a job is willing to work at that particular job for $8 per hour.  If that weren’t the case, then no law would be necessary.

The minimum wage laws simply outlaw employment.  They destroy freedom of association and the freedom to work.

I think the whole concept of freedom of association has been lost on many Americans.  It doesn’t matter if you are dealing with economics or social issues.  Having the government force people to do business and having the government prohibit certain people from doing business is just bad policy.  It doesn’t matter whether you personally think it is a good idea.  You should not force voluntary consenting adults from choosing what to do with their own life and their own property.

In conclusion, the election results are a mixed bag for libertarians.  But I think there is some progress and I think there has been a little bit of a shift in public opinion on some issues.

As I write this, it looks as though Terry McAuliffe will be the next governor of Virginia.  However, the election results are extremely close.

I was expecting McAuliffe to win easily.  While I don’t consider Virginia a given for Democrats, such as New York and California, I consider it more Democratic leaning than Republican.

The results are extremely close.  There is about 1% separating the Republican and Democrat.  And more surprisingly, the Libertarian candidate received well over 6% of the vote, which is quite remarkable given how close the race was.

So while McAuliffe may be the winner, it is actually Obamacare that is the loser.  I will explain further.

McAuliffe is a sleaze bag.  He is as corrupt as they come.  I know this not just because he is a politician.  I know this because he is a close friend of the Clintons.  Anyone who voluntarily hangs around the Clintons is likely to be a bad apple.  Most Clinton associates either end up in politics, end up in jail, or end up in an “accidental” death somewhere.  I guess it is lucky for McAuliffe that he ended up in politics.

Now back to Obamacare.  The Republican candidate in Virginia was backed by the Tea Party.  He is what is considered a conservative Republican.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian, while not a radical by any means, supports lower taxes and less government.  I don’t buy the mantra that the Libertarian candidate always steals votes from the Republican candidate.  There might be a little more truth to that at the state and local level, but most people who vote Libertarian have a mind of their own anyway.  They could just as likely have stayed home or put down a write-in candidate.

In this particular election, if you combine the Libertarian vote and the Republican vote, McAuliffe lost by over 5%.  And while Obamacare is not really a state level issue (unless you are talking about nullification), it is one of the top things on the mind of voters.  You better believe that Obamacare is having an effect on people’s attitudes towards Republicans and Democrats and it isn’t good for the Democrats.

I think Obamacare is only going to become more of a disaster as time goes on.  Wait until people actually have to start paying the exorbitant premiums for lousy coverage.  I think the Democrats are going to pay a heavy price in 2014.

I think the Virginia election points to this.  Even though the Democrat technically won, it was not with a majority of votes.  He just barely won in a state that does not usually go conservative.  The majority of people voted for someone who they perceived as being for smaller government, at least in terms of the economy.  Both the Libertarian and Republican were anti-Obamacare, at least in rhetoric.

It looks as though the Democrats will experience heavy losses in 2014.  It is still possible that Obamacare could get repealed.

Food stamps have been in the news lately, as recipients are facing some minor scheduled cuts in the government program.  The politically correct term these days is SNAP, which stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.  It should also be pointed out that we don’t really see food stamps any more.  It is more like a credit card that bills the taxpayer.

Here is one article on the cuts that food stamp recipients are facing.  I realize how naive I was about this whole thing.  I knew that the number of recipients had grown substantially over the last ten years and was now close to 50 million Americans.  But I had no idea the amounts that people were receiving.

A family of four can get a maximum payment of $668 per month.  This is set to decrease to $632.  I really had no idea it was this much.  I thought it was a supplement.  I didn’t realize that food stamps paid for people’s groceries in their entirety, all year long.

At $632 per month (the reduced amount), that still leaves over $150 per week for a family of four.  That is over $20 per day.  As long as you are not buying individual meals and not buying expensive meals like steak and lobster, then this should cover most or all of your food expenses.  It is easy to realize why non-recipients get so aggravated at the massive welfare.

I realize that you can’t buy alcohol or cigarettes with food stamp money.  But this really doesn’t matter.  Money is fungible.  If someone pays for their beer and cigarettes separately, it doesn’t mean that these things are not being subsidized.  The person could have used the money spent on beer and cigarettes and put that towards food, instead of using government violence to collect the money.

I realize that there are all different kinds of government welfare.  I would certainly rather see a food stamp program than a war overseas that kills innocent people.  I would rather see a food stamp program than funding the drug war that destroys people’s lives and causes higher crime rates.  I would rather see a food stamp program than sending money to dictators in foreign countries.

I have sympathy for some poor people (even though that doesn’t justify using force).  But there are many poor people for which I have little sympathy.  I suppose my only sympathy is that they were brought up by terrible parents, or maybe one parent.  They grew up with bad examples and a terrible school system that taught them how to be leaches on society.

I do have sympathy for poor people who work hard.  There are many hardworking people, both poor and middle class, who find themselves struggling.  They are in a bad system where the government makes their lives extremely difficult.  Government regulation, massive government spending, and Federal Reserve inflation all make us poorer and make our lives harder than they should be.

I think there is going to come a time when the middle and upper classes say “enough”.  They don’t want to seem uncompassionate, but there will come a time when they will be pushed over the edge and will demand a reduction, if not a stop, to the massive government welfare.

The food stamp program is symbolic of government welfare.  It causes resentment on both sides.  It creates dependency on one side and anger on the other.  And then the dependent side gets angry when their plunder is reduced by about 5% per month.

The non-recipients are still a large majority in this country.  There may be 47 million Americans on food stamps, but there are over 250 million who are not.  The 250 million can put a stop to it at any time.

There was a recent article on Mises.org by Brian LaSorsa about creating a monopoly.  The author, in a sarcastic tone, presents “the five best ways to create a monopoly and to ensure you never have to compete again.”  The five things are as follows:

1. Regulations
2. Subsidies
3. Nationalization
4. Tariffs
5. Intellectual property

There was a short article written by Charles Hugh Smith and published at LewRockwell.com about another real estate bubble.  The author says “it’s painfully obvious that real estate valuations are once again at asset-bubble extremes, one that’s even bigger than the last RE bubble that popped in 2008 with devastating consequences to the global economy.”

There is a lot of debate right now about real estate, even amongst libertarians.  I think most libertarians will agree that the housing market has certainly been distorted by government and Federal Reserve policies.

While I think that real estate prices are higher than they would be if the Fed weren’t buying long-term government debt and mortgage-backed securities, I also think that it is kind of absurd to say that we are in a bigger real estate bubble now than what just popped a few years ago.

The chart shown in the article is misleading when used in reference to a possible housing bubble.  This is a chart of REITs, or real estate investment trusts.  These are investments in real estate.  Many of them are highly leveraged.  It should be no surprise that investors who bought a few years ago when housing prices were at the bottom are now doing quite well with their investments.  The profitability of REITs is quite different from actual housing prices.

The median price of a single-family residence in the U.S. is still well below the peak median price from about 6 years ago.  And you have to consider that we have had 6 years of inflation since then too, so in real terms the prices are even lower.

Of course, all real estate is local and some areas do have higher price points than what was seen at the peak of the housing bubble.  But on average in the U.S., prices are still lower, in both real terms and nominal terms.

Perhaps what we have now is the start of a new real estate bubble that will one day pop again.  But to say that it’s bigger than 2008 at this point is just not accurate.  There are still a lot of people out there who are underwater on their mortgage.  If we were in another major bubble right now, then these people would have positive equity, which simply still isn’t the case for millions of homeowners.

I can’t say for certain one way or the other if real estate it going up or down or if we are in another bubble.  But at this point, there is no way that it is as bad as it was in 2007.

The FOMC has released its October 30 statement regarding monetary policy.  You can compare it to its September 18, 2013 statement.  There are few minor word changes, but essentially it is mostly the same as what was issued 6 weeks earlier.

As usual, it was almost unanimous, with Esther L. George being the one dissenting vote, citing concerns about long-term inflation expectations.

So the Fed will not “taper” yet.  While there was a lot of talk about tapering a few months ago, it was expected going into the day that tapering would not begin now.  It is looking more and more likely that tapering will not begin until 2014, if it ever begins.

This means that for the year 2013, the Fed will have created about $1 trillion out of thin air.  The total adjusted monetary base was just over $800 billion 5 years ago and now the Fed is creating $1 trillion on annual basis.  This is simply astounding and it makes it hard to predict the consequences we will see because it is so unprecedented.

I’m not sure how long the Fed’s game can go on for, but it can’t keep going forever.  At some point, either the economy is going to run out of juice from the stimulus and all of the previous malinvestment will be exposed, or else we will see higher price inflation.

If we see higher price inflation first, then the Fed will eventually have to cut back in order to avoid hyperinflation.  So at some point, we will get a bust.  It is just a question of how long things can be dragged on and how severe the bust will be when it comes.

Given the Fed’s current policy, I think it may be a good time to buy gold and gold related investments, even outside of your core holdings if you have a permanent portfolio setup.  This would be for speculation and I am not suggesting that you throw all of your eggs in one basket.  But if the Fed keeps pumping and velocity picks up some more, then consumer prices could rise fast.  Gold may even precede a rise in consumer prices, must like a canary in the coal mine.

For this reason, you should not wait for confirmation to buy gold if you think it is a good buy now.  Will you be any more likely to buy when it hits $1,500 as opposed to its current price at just under $1,350?

The Fed is proving its trustworthiness in trying to make the dollar worth less.  It is making us all poorer in the process, so you should at least try to protect some of what you have by investing in hard assets.