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?