Comment by espadrine
19 days ago
> I rather define freedom by the government not deciding what's good for me
Does that mean you are against this bill?
Before the bill, your community could either use your own water system, without fluoride, or use the wider system, which has fluoride.
After this bill, your community no longer can use your own water system with fluoride, and the wider system also does not have fluoride.
On a first read, this bill makes the government remove a choice for you, deciding what is good for you.
(I don’t have a horse in this race honestly. Assuming everyone can get toothpaste and toothbrushes, the effect is the same. But the wording of the bill is strange: “may not add fluoride” rather than just “is allowed not to add”.)
Source: https://archive.is/Nustz
"Your community could decide" is not freedom in the American political sense. In US political theory, the unit of freedom is the individual, full stop.
I've seen this retort elsewhere. It's not true. It's why corporations are persons with first amendment and other freedoms.
Corporations are not actually persons. You should read the Citizens United opinion if that's what you think it meant.
Corporate owners are people engaging in voluntary transactions. Their freedom was essentially the question in Citizens United. "Corporations are people" emerged from the media as an oversimplified version.
2 replies →