Comment by foldr

Some people would prefer there to be fluoride added to the water and some people would prefer there not to be. There's one set of pipes (in a given municipality), so you can't please everyone. You might as well complain that the government doesn't offer you a choice of voltage or frequency for your electrical supply.

Looking around the thread, the idea seems to be that there is some kind of important metaphysical distinction between the government "adding" something to the water that people could in principle add themselves or merely "filtering out" bad stuff like pathogens — and that this metaphysical distinction is somehow linked to the difference between positive and negative liberties. As an aside, I think this probably makes no sense on a chemical level, as you generally can't remove stuff without also adding something else. But in any case, this strikes me as a uniquely American perspective. I think a more common perspective is the following:

* Essentially no-one wants raw untreated water supplied to their homes.

* The local government therefore needs to decide in which ways the water is going to be treated.

* This has to involve some compromises (because there's one set of pipes).

* These compromises are boring practical issues of municipal infrastructure and have no interesting philosophical or political implications.