Vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz, of whom I am not a fan, had one very good line that he used a lot when running on the Democratic ticket last summer: “Mind your own damn business.” He didn’t really believe it. Someone who sets up a snitch line during the Covid lockdown doesn’t really believe that government should mind its own business. But, despite Walz’s hypocrisy, it’s still a good thought.
Some of us, though, had the faint hope that Donald Trump would be a little more open to the idea of government minding its own damn business. On some issues, such as mandates for gas stoves and shower heads, he has come through.
But on some other very big issues, he has gone the other way. I warned friends who were thinking that RFK, Jr. as the head of HHS was a good pick, that we would have “the nanny state on steroids.” I’m turning out to be right.
The latest instance is Marty Makary, whom other friends had said would be a good pick as head of the Food and Drug Administration, and who answers to RFK, Jr.
I wish.
Here’s what my friend Dr. Jeff Singer writes about Makary’s latest:
On May 13, the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to pull fluoride supplements, such as tablets and drops, off the market. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary stated that if people want their children to avoid dental caries, they should have them eat less sugar and practice good dental hygiene. While Dr. Makary emphasizes diet and hygiene, both important, his approach ignores the evidence that fluoride, used appropriately, plays a crucial preventive role.
In short, you plebes, do it my way.
There’s such an obvious solution to the issue of fluoride in water and Jeff lays it out nicely:
It’s one thing when government-monopoly water companies stop fluoridating the water, allowing people uncomfortable with consuming fluoridated water to opt out. It’s an entirely different matter to deny access to fluoride for those who wish to consume it.
If people wish to enjoy its benefits, there are many ways to obtain fluoride: from bottled fluoridated water to fluoride tablets and drops, varnish, and toothpaste. The FDA’s proposal to remove drops and tablets from the market undermines patients’ autonomy by denying them the right to consume a product with benefits that, for them, outweigh its risks.
Jeff goes on, quite rightly, to push his new book, writing:
In my book, Your Body, Your Health Care, I list various ways the government ignores our self-ownership and infringes on our right to make our own health care decisions. If the FDA’s proposed ban on fluoride tablets and drops is adopted, this must be added to the list.
READER COMMENTS
Mike Hammock
May 15 2025 at 10:38am
It’s an inversion of “everything not forbidden is compulsory”: “everything not compulsory is forbidden”.
David Henderson
May 15 2025 at 10:59am
Yes,.
Barbara Stevens
May 15 2025 at 11:32am
Growing up, our dentist had us take fluoride pills…and I have always wondered why it isn’t the norm now. Whenever the topic comes up, those that support it are almost rabid about the benefits to children. But has anyone noticed how few children drink water from the tap? The lugging of water bottles is almost universal, at least in this country.
Peter
May 15 2025 at 4:56pm
Most of those water bottles though are filled up with tap water, including many you purchase full tapped at the factory. The bigger concern is the amount of filtered water popping up even in homes as besides flouride, they remove a non-nutritionally negligible amount of necessary minerals we incidentally get from it.
I believe flouride pills were replaced with flouride treatments. I feel, but might be wrong, years ago reading a NIH paper on that and concerns about systemic affects from the pills, usually accidentally, as it’s nearly impossible to hit the therapeutic dosage via pill while factoring in the secondary amounts they got from toothpaste, drinking water, and treatments without going into the flouride is poison realm.
Charley Hooper
May 15 2025 at 12:16pm
When Marty Makary announced this new rule, I felt a part of me die. I’ve read his writing and heard him speak for years now and I thought he would be a good FDA commissioner. But he works for Donald Trump and RFK, Jr. So either Makary has his own bad ideas or he’s just following orders from his two bosses. Either way, my respect for him plummeted.
BTW, I noticed this in Singer’s post: “…avoid dental caries…” should be “…avoid dental cavities…”
David Henderson
May 15 2025 at 2:17pm
It is sad, isn’t it?
“Caries” is correct.
Charley Hooper
May 15 2025 at 3:09pm
Thanks. I didn’t know that.
steve
May 15 2025 at 7:28pm
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Steve
Monte
May 15 2025 at 12:37pm
Based on the evidence, it’s easy to defend fluoridation because the benefits outweigh the risks and RFK, Jr. should mind his own damn business. But taken to its logical extreme, Dr. Singer’s statement – that “government ignores our self-ownership and infringes on our right to make our own health care decisions” – basically says that consumer choice is sovereign. But there are obvious externalities that would result from such a hands-off policy.
Do Libertarians believe that government should play a role in setting limits on self-ownership?
nobody.really
May 15 2025 at 11:34pm
I rarely think of inaction as triggering an externality–but I don’t see why I shouldn’t.
In any event, there are plenty of pro-active things a person could complain about. The rationale for discontinuing fluoridation also applies to all the other things that water utilities do. For example, when treating water for distribution, utilities typically remove minerals. Demineralised water increased diuresis and the elimination of electrolytes, with decreased blood serum potassium concentration. Magnesium, calcium, and other minerals in water reduce nutritional deficiency. Demineralized water may also increase the risk from toxic metals because it more readily leaches materials from piping like lead and cadmium, which is prevented by dissolved minerals such as calcium and magnesium. Low-mineral water has been implicated in specific cases of lead poisoning in infants, when lead from pipes leached at especially high rates into the water.
Desalination processes can increase the risk of bacterial contamination.
And utilities that disinfect water with chloramine find that it can dissolve the protective film inside older service lines, leading to the leaching of lead into residential spigots.
Each of these interventions in our water supply introduce some adverse consequence. Why must these busy-body utilities impinge upon our right to drink raw water, just as God intended? If you want artificially “clean” water, feel free to clean it yourself in your own home–but don’t impose your weird preferences on me! Plus, I suspect that this so-called “clean” water is slowly corroding my tin hat….
Monte
May 16 2025 at 12:48am
Thanks for the overview of how a utility processes water for public consumption, which, as a consumer, I’m grateful for and have no issues with. My question, though, has nothing to do with that.
What I’m curious about is the Libertarian view towards self-ownership and health care. Is consumer choice absolute, or should the government set limits on what people choose to decide for themselves (whether or not to get vaccinated, pay for health insurance, do drugs)?
Monte
May 16 2025 at 12:57am
The externalities resulting from consumers choosing not to vaccinate themselves (or their children), purchase health insurance, or do drugs are self evident.
steve
May 16 2025 at 1:00pm
Demineralization is not routinely done by any public water plants of which I am aware. That is an expensive process and I doubt many places could afford it. It’s generally reserved for applications where you need water of high purity. If you want to invoke God then I guess you would have to note that God intended* for water sources to have lots of bacteria, viruses and contaminants. Public water treatment plants filter them out. Also, water contribute little to needed minerals. There are some studies showing that drinking purified water had very small effects on calcium but the ones I have seen are small and have some selection problems.
On fluoride the huge bulk of the evidence shows positive effects but there are concerns about high levels of fluoride. In areas that have naturally high levels of fluoride there is concern that adding fluoride in toothpaste, etc may be harmful.
*Also on my list God intended for us to die when we get appenditicits, pneumonia and any number of other diseases/illnesses. Mankind looks to overcome those problems.
Steve
David Henderson
May 16 2025 at 1:52pm
Good response. Thanks, steve.
Monte
May 16 2025 at 8:22pm
Likewise, thanks for the response to the question of self-ownership and health care. Guess I’m in the penalty box.
Mactoul
May 15 2025 at 9:01pm
America has a famously unregulated supplement market.
So, only prescription fluorides are being taken off. People are still free to take fluorides from the unregulated supplement market. FDA has no authority there.
nobody.really
May 16 2025 at 5:35pm
Speaking of Gov. Walz: Courts struck down his initiative directing utilities to minimize carbon emissions when choosing sources of electricity—including electricity from out-of-state sources. Under Walz’s formula, Minnesota utilities would have to consider the average carbon emissions associated with building, operating, and retiring generators. Manitoba Hydro sued, arguing that applying the policy to out-of-state (and international) generators would violate the US’s Commerce Clause. The courts agreed: Walz could apply this policy to, say, in-state hydro plants, but not to Manitoba Hydro. In effect, they told Minnesota to mind its own dam business.
(Just kidding. I think there was a case like this in Minnesota, but it pre-dated Walz.)
Comments are closed.