← Back to context

Comment by leereeves

20 days ago

> 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?

4 comments

leereeves

Reply
abirch  20 days ago

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.

  • leereeves  20 days ago

    > 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.