7 ms·

It's also restricting the freedom of communities if you ban them from adding fluoride to their water if they like to. This ban is anti-freedom. (Just like forc

It's also restricting the freedom of communities if you ban them from adding fluoride to their water if they like to. This ban is anti-freedom. (Just like forcing them could be argued to be, even though that's what you argued against.) So, this ban is arguably reducing freedoms on multiple levels.

pclmulqdq 1y ago
In the political philosophy of the US, the unit whose freedoms matter is the individual, not the community. Freedoms for individuals necessarily come from reducing the freedom of "the community."
- regularjack 1y ago
  AKA as the spoiled brat kind of freedom.
- thelastgallon 1y ago
  In reality though, the freedom of the companies, which is just the freedom of the super rich ~100 - 1000 people (proxied via companies without taking direct responsibility: The sacred duty of company is to maximize shareholder returns!) 10,000 food additives that are banned in Europe are perfectly fine in US. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-food-additives-banned-europe-making-americans-sick-expert-says/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-food-additives-banned-europe... https://isitclean.org/the-ingredients-banned-in-the-eu-but-legal-in-the-us/ https://isitclean.org/the-ingredients-banned-in-the-eu-but-l...
- Mordisquitos 1y ago
  But, taking the individual freedom argument to its ultimate implications, the Free individual is also Free to not drink tap water in a community that decided to add fluoride to their water supply, and is also Free to move to a community that decided against it.
  - kebman 1y ago
    It's not a "freedom" to be forced to move away from a community just because you want pure water. Moral philosophy: A democracy should not act as the tyranny of the majority, and governments (local or otherwise) should not overreach their mandate with monopolistic policies that negatively affect individual freedoms. Use the same argument on air and it falls apart. "The Free individual is also Free to not breathe air in a community that decided to add lead to their air supply." This was a big debate in the 70's btw due to car emissions.
    - thfuran 1y ago
      >A democracy should not act as the tyranny of the majority, and governments (local or otherwise) should not overreach their mandate with monopolistic policies that negatively affect individual freedoms. Then it shouldn't ban fluoridation when it could instead simply not mandate it.
    - swasheck 1y ago
      the point was good until you tried to compare it to lead in the air. there are a few factors that make it impossible to use the same argument between lead in the air and fluoride in the water
- swasheck 1y ago
  yes, and i think that’s a pretty recent reading of the US comprehension of freedom. my sense is that the collective individualistic tendencies have ballooned. even as recently as the early 90s, my civics classes emphasized the importance of other people’s rights and that of the expression of your individual rights infringed on the rights of others then it was an irresponsible and improper use of individual rights. it seems like this has devolved into people whose perspective on individual rights loosely aligns enough to coalesce and shout the loudest to create policy. until someone in the in-group’s individual freedom is impacted and the group fractures into smaller coalitions. rinse. lather. repeat.
  - pclmulqdq 1y ago
    I disagree with you that this is a recent idea. It goes back to Locke, Hobbes, and the social contract theorists. The "collective freedoms" idea is more recent, if anything, coming from the subsequent generation of philosophers.
    - swasheck 1y ago
      i can agree with the theory behind what you’re saying, but also sense that the practical application of individual freedoms has become increasingly prevalent and acute
      - pclmulqdq 1y ago
        In some ways, though, this is a reaction to the move in the other direction. The US in the 1800's was very much in favor of individual freedoms, but by the 1920's-1960's things swung heavily towards the idea of "positive freedom" and "community freedom."
- maxerickson 1y ago
  Why are the remaining individuals in the community forced to include your individual in their decisions? (I'm not being serious, I'm pointing out that you may not have found your first principle just yet)
kebman 1y ago
Personal freedom ≠ "freedom of communities"—there is no such thing. Freedom applies to individuals, not collectives. When a community makes a decision that affects all its members, that’s democracy, but democracy is not unlimited authority. A majority vote does not grant the right to infringe on individual autonomy, which is why safeguards exist against the tyranny of the majority. Banning fluoride does not restrict freedom—it prevents government overreach. In contrast, forcing fluoride on everyone would violate personal autonomy. Protecting individual choice is a fundamental principle, backed by real-world safeguards like constitutional rights, judicial review, and bodily autonomy laws. The burden of proof is always on those seeking to impose a policy, not on those defending individual freedom.
- alistairSH 1y ago
  But nobody is forced to drink municipal water. You can go to the grocery and pallets of gallon jugs if you prefer.
  - kebman 1y ago
    Then the community is exactly forcing people to seek other, and way more expensive and way more inconvenient, sources of water. That's the opposite of a freedom.
    - nulbyte 1y ago
      Why is the city required to provide water in the first place?
      - mystraline 1y ago
        Please go away, libertarian troll. Really? 'Why is the government providing potable water'? Because that's the point of governments: to provide a framework and the bare essentials of civilization. And well, libertarian led governments are TERRIBLE. https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-int...
bavell 1y ago
I heard they were going to mandate seatbelts next! Where are our freedoms?!?!?
- ryandrake 1y ago
  You joke, but a lot of these freedom-rah-rah-rah people absolutely cried like babies and resisted seatbelt laws back in the 80s and 90s, too. Half my family believed it was evidence a communist takeover, and they all had those little defeat devices that you plugged into the latch, which silenced the car's seatbelt-off indicator. "You can't tell me what to do" has been a religion in the USA for a long, long time.
gruez 1y ago
>This ban is anti-freedom. (Just like forcing them could be argued to be, even though that's what you argued against.) By that logic is the first amendment "anti-freedom", because it prevents communities from instituting censorship laws, even if they actually want them?

pclmulqdq 1y ago

In the political philosophy of the US, the unit whose freedoms matter is the individual, not the community. Freedoms for individuals necessarily come from reducing the freedom of "the community."

regularjack 1y ago
AKA as the spoiled brat kind of freedom.
thelastgallon 1y ago
In reality though, the freedom of the companies, which is just the freedom of the super rich ~100 - 1000 people (proxied via companies without taking direct responsibility: The sacred duty of company is to maximize shareholder returns!) 10,000 food additives that are banned in Europe are perfectly fine in US. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-food-additives-banned-europe-making-americans-sick-expert-says/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-food-additives-banned-europe... https://isitclean.org/the-ingredients-banned-in-the-eu-but-legal-in-the-us/ https://isitclean.org/the-ingredients-banned-in-the-eu-but-l...
Mordisquitos 1y ago
But, taking the individual freedom argument to its ultimate implications, the Free individual is also Free to not drink tap water in a community that decided to add fluoride to their water supply, and is also Free to move to a community that decided against it.
- kebman 1y ago
  It's not a "freedom" to be forced to move away from a community just because you want pure water. Moral philosophy: A democracy should not act as the tyranny of the majority, and governments (local or otherwise) should not overreach their mandate with monopolistic policies that negatively affect individual freedoms. Use the same argument on air and it falls apart. "The Free individual is also Free to not breathe air in a community that decided to add lead to their air supply." This was a big debate in the 70's btw due to car emissions.
  - thfuran 1y ago
    >A democracy should not act as the tyranny of the majority, and governments (local or otherwise) should not overreach their mandate with monopolistic policies that negatively affect individual freedoms. Then it shouldn't ban fluoridation when it could instead simply not mandate it.
  - swasheck 1y ago
    the point was good until you tried to compare it to lead in the air. there are a few factors that make it impossible to use the same argument between lead in the air and fluoride in the water
swasheck 1y ago
yes, and i think that’s a pretty recent reading of the US comprehension of freedom. my sense is that the collective individualistic tendencies have ballooned. even as recently as the early 90s, my civics classes emphasized the importance of other people’s rights and that of the expression of your individual rights infringed on the rights of others then it was an irresponsible and improper use of individual rights. it seems like this has devolved into people whose perspective on individual rights loosely aligns enough to coalesce and shout the loudest to create policy. until someone in the in-group’s individual freedom is impacted and the group fractures into smaller coalitions. rinse. lather. repeat.
- pclmulqdq 1y ago
  I disagree with you that this is a recent idea. It goes back to Locke, Hobbes, and the social contract theorists. The "collective freedoms" idea is more recent, if anything, coming from the subsequent generation of philosophers.
  - swasheck 1y ago
    i can agree with the theory behind what you’re saying, but also sense that the practical application of individual freedoms has become increasingly prevalent and acute
    - pclmulqdq 1y ago
      In some ways, though, this is a reaction to the move in the other direction. The US in the 1800's was very much in favor of individual freedoms, but by the 1920's-1960's things swung heavily towards the idea of "positive freedom" and "community freedom."
maxerickson 1y ago
Why are the remaining individuals in the community forced to include your individual in their decisions? (I'm not being serious, I'm pointing out that you may not have found your first principle just yet)

kebman 1y ago

Personal freedom ≠ "freedom of communities"—there is no such thing. Freedom applies to individuals, not collectives. When a community makes a decision that affects all its members, that’s democracy, but democracy is not unlimited authority. A majority vote does not grant the right to infringe on individual autonomy, which is why safeguards exist against the tyranny of the majority. Banning fluoride does not restrict freedom—it prevents government overreach. In contrast, forcing fluoride on everyone would violate personal autonomy. Protecting individual choice is a fundamental principle, backed by real-world safeguards like constitutional rights, judicial review, and bodily autonomy laws. The burden of proof is always on those seeking to impose a policy, not on those defending individual freedom.

alistairSH 1y ago
But nobody is forced to drink municipal water. You can go to the grocery and pallets of gallon jugs if you prefer.
- kebman 1y ago
  Then the community is exactly forcing people to seek other, and way more expensive and way more inconvenient, sources of water. That's the opposite of a freedom.
  - nulbyte 1y ago
    Why is the city required to provide water in the first place?
    - mystraline 1y ago
      Please go away, libertarian troll. Really? 'Why is the government providing potable water'? Because that's the point of governments: to provide a framework and the bare essentials of civilization. And well, libertarian led governments are TERRIBLE. https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-int...

bavell 1y ago

I heard they were going to mandate seatbelts next! Where are our freedoms?!?!?

ryandrake 1y ago
You joke, but a lot of these freedom-rah-rah-rah people absolutely cried like babies and resisted seatbelt laws back in the 80s and 90s, too. Half my family believed it was evidence a communist takeover, and they all had those little defeat devices that you plugged into the latch, which silenced the car's seatbelt-off indicator. "You can't tell me what to do" has been a religion in the USA for a long, long time.

gruez 1y ago

>This ban is anti-freedom. (Just like forcing them could be argued to be, even though that's what you argued against.) By that logic is the first amendment "anti-freedom", because it prevents communities from instituting censorship laws, even if they actually want them?