Many places in Europe have high levels of fluoride in their water naturally. In fact many of them are likely getting far too much fluoride.

Also realistically, if people cared about bodily autonomy cars would've been banned immediately thanks to the amount of particulates and local pollution produced causing far more adverse health effects.

If a state wants to ban cars it should be free to do so. I think the benefits outweigh the costs and no one would choose to live there.

Also important to note no one is banning flouride. They're preventing it from being put in the drinking water. The equivalent would be if cars were distributed upon arriving to the state.

The state is taking the rights away from the municipalities. Why not leave it up to the local people? No one was forcing local towns to fluoridate their water.

But municipalities that chose to do so would be taking the choice away from each individual.

I don't know enough to form an opinion about whether Utah's new policy is good or bad, but it is clearly on the side of individual freedom. (of course that's not the only concern)

I would say that it's not on the side of individual freedom but the will of the state. It's easier to build a local coalition than a state wide one. Democracy has costs but they're usually lessened when you're going down to the local levels. Sure an individual may not get to choose everything (such as zoning laws) but zoning laws are best managed by the municipality and not at the state nor federal level.

Imagine if 70% of Salt Lake City wants this but can't because of people living hundreds of miles away. Not sure if that's a huge win.

> Imagine if 70% of Salt Lake City wants this but can't because of people living hundreds of miles away. Not sure if that's a huge win.

That 70% can use floride toothpaste or mouthwash. What happens to the 30% who don't want it in your scenario?

Democracies have costs. Unless you expect 100% of people to agree on everything, then you have to accept that the minority should accept certain outcomes. The smaller the group that chooses, the better the majority. The more likely that you personally will be able to make a change.

Local is better than State. State is better than Federal. If this was going from the federal level to the state, I would agree that it's a win for personal liberty. Unfortunately it's local going to the state level. If a water district of 100,000 people all want this, they simply can't do it. It doesn't seem fair that people who won't be impacted get to decide.

> Local is better than State. State is better than Federal.

I agree. When issues require collective action, it should be decided at the smallest capable level.

In this case, the smallest capable level is the individual. To extend your comparison: individual is better than local.

This _isn't_ an issue that requires collective action; people can treat their own teeth with fluoride or take fluoride supplements.

I assume you hold the same consistent viewpoint on say, Abortion, correct?

Yes, municipality is better than state which is better than federal government. The same viewpoint with gun laws, taxation, regulation, etc. It's easier for me to move a few miles to find like minded people than it is for me to move hundreds of miles to leave a state or thousands to leave the my country.

Personally I see states as an artifact of the 20th century. Why can't municipalities govern themselves? Why shouldn't my city be able to leave my state and join another. States made sense before the internet and communication was difficult. Now they're just a middle man without a lot of value.

If eastern towns of California don't want to be grouped together with San Francisco or Los Angeles: why should they be forced to be? Because someone in the 18th or 19th century determined it?

The equivalent would be if I'm forced to have a government funded road with cars just past my front yard.

This is textbook whataboutism and seemingly an example of the nirvana fallacy too. All of the above as well as euthenasia and abortion can be included under bodily autonomy and there's no reason we shouldn't support all of it.

Is one due the right to potable water at a tap at their home? Or is purified water a service offered by the government as one source of many available to the us population?

Are you not allowed to pay for bottled water instead of paying your local utility for drinking water?

The bodily autonomy argument seems bad to me because you are buying water from the government when you could buy water from any other source instead.

Is the argument that the government water is too convenient and so it should be unfiltered? Who is to say that filtering out poop is not infringing on my right to consume unfiltered water?