Decentralizing Our Water Resolves the Fluoridation Question (and Other Dilemmas)

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

 

 
 

This past Friday
on the talk shows, Jason Lewis and Mark Levin were both discussing
the controversy
of fluoridation of the public water supplies, and Robert
Wenzel linked
to an AP story, and to an
article
by Murray Rothbard. Some people are saying that critics
of water fluoridation are "conspiracy theorists." Rothbard
points out the early politicization of water fluoridation, and refers
to fluoride as a "highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance."
Now, given Rothbard's credibility as an overly conscientious practitioner
of truth and verification in economics, history, science and so
on, I trust Rothbard's judgment on any subject about which he had
written.

And for further
reading on fluoride, I very much suggest Dr. Donald Miller's 2005
article, Fluoride
Follies
, and his more recent one, Fighting
Fluoride
from last November. And I trust Dr. Miller's expertise
and judgment, too, given that he is the head of cardiothoracic surgery
at Seattle VA Medical Center and a professor of surgery at the University
of Washington School of Medicine, and is a prestigious heart transplant
surgeon. He is very thorough in his extensive research on these
issues, and regarding the importance of Vitamin
D
especially.

But to me,
the question isn't whether or not the State — local municipalities,
state governments or the federal government — should or should not
fluoridate the water, or add any particular chemicals to the water.
To me, the question is whether the State has any legitimate role
in water (or any other "utilities") whatsoever. The answer,
quite frankly, is no. As I wrote in this
blog post
last May, collectivization of the water supply is
a bad idea:

…There has
been a crisis (in the greater Boston area) with our water supply,
which is supplied by the Quabbin
Reservoir
, in which a major
pipe burst
and the 29 communities who are dependent on the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority for water are being served
with untreated "pond water," and told to boil the water
for drinking and cooking. It appears as though the problem is
almost completely fixed and things should be back
to normal tomorrow
. The part of the system in question was
built by Barletta Companies of Canton, Massachusetts, just 7 years
ago, so this reminds me of the Big
Dig fiasco
in 2006 in which a large piece of tunnel ceiling
collapsed and killed a Boston woman, only a few years after that
was built. The old saying goes, "They don't make things like
they used to." (Because everything is controlled by the State
now!)

But the idea
of our water being supplied by one source is also troubling. However,
the one community that is not affected by this is ironically the
most communist of all these areas, the People's Republic of Cambridge,
home of Harvard University, MIT, and tens of thousands of Marxists,
environmentalist wackos and women with hairy legs. Cambridge supplies
its own water and is NOT dependent on the MWRA for its water needs.

That a whole
population of 2 million people (in the greater Boston area) is
dependent on one centralized source of water is just so…Dark
Ages, if you ask me. Each community should have its own supply
of water, and, in fact, each parcel of property should have a
private well with one's own filtration system. That's just my
opinion on that, and it's not at all unrealistic…

Collectivism
sucks.

And not only
is collectivization and State control over the water supply a bad
idea, it is a very dangerous idea. We have been seeing in the past
year especially how governments, in our case the U.S. government,
can tyrannize and oppress their own people, through the Nazi
TSA
in the airports, through ObamaCare's
government control over an entire population's critical, private
health matters, and through phony insider
trading laws
and other tyrannical, stifling financial and business
regulations. But, while most Americans are not aware of the way
that foreign governments have used their power over the collective
water supplies to oppress their own people (because most Americans
rely on the misinformed mainstream media for their news), Americans
should be informed as to not only what the government of Israel
has been doing to the people of Gaza regarding its control of their
water, but further back in time to the 1990s, what the U.S. government
had done to the people of Iraq regarding their water supply.

More recently,
during and after the December 2008–January 2009 war between
the Israeli military and Hamas (which has been ruling Gaza since
2006), the Israeli military had severely damaged the Gaza water
and sewage treatment facilities that to this day have still not
been returned to full functioning capacity, and the 1 million-plus
population of the Gaza Strip have been forced to use untreated water.
Through its paranoid and sadistic blockade
of Gaza
, the Israeli government has been preventing construction
supplies from reaching
Gaza
to fix the water
and sewage
treatment facilities, and worse, the Israeli government
has been literally preventing
the Gaza population from being able to travel outside of Gaza to
areas such as Jerusalem to receive medical treatment.

Most Americans
do not know these things, because the American media get their information
from the Israeli media who get their information from the Israeli
government. But had there been actual freedom in Israel and Gaza,
and private property ownership and property rights being allowed
to occur, allowed by both the Israeli government and Gaza's Hamas
(and by "allowed," I mean "not violated, not trespassed"
by their governments), each property where residents live and where
businesses are located would be privately owned, people would be
protected based on laws against trespass and other property intrusions,
and most important as is relevant here, each parcel of property
would have its own private well, controlled by the owner(s) of the
property. That way, no government agents as well as no other people
in general may tamper with individual private property owners' water
supply. Instead, at least in Israel, what we have is a government
using the population's dependence on the government's stronghold
over the "public" water supply
as a weapon. That's
just barbaric.

The situation
during the 1990s was very similar in Iraq, as far as how the U.S.
government treated the people of Iraq after deliberately bombing
their electricity and water and sewage treatment facilities. Through
the U.S. government's control
and sanctions that prevented reconstruction
of those facilities
to occur, the population of Iraq were forced to use untreated water.
That was followed throughout the u201890s by a dramatic increase in
diseases such as gastroenteritis, cholera and typhoid, and skyrocketing
child mortality and cancer
rates
, which was the U.S. military's intention.
Typical of our modern government bureaucrat ignoramuses, then-Secretary
of State Madeline
Albright stated
on 60 Minutes that such diseases and
deaths of over 500,000 Iraqis, many of them children, were "worth
it" as a means of regime
change
and ousting then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, which the
then-U.S. regime didn't even do.

Is my bringing
up these actual historical events being a "conspiracy theorist?"
Hardly.

So, whether
or not the government deliberately puts fluoride into our public
water supplies, and whether or not fluoride is a good or bad thing
for us or for kids' teeth, I think that government control over
our water, and making us all dependent on the government for our
water has been a bad idea, and is potentially dangerous. Given what
the U.S. government has done to the people of Iraq, and what the
Israeli government has done to the people of Gaza, do not discount
the possibility that our own government could actually take advantage
of its control over our water for devious purposes.

Scott
Lazarowitz [send him mail]
is a commentator and cartoonist at Reasonandjest.com.

The
Best of Scott Lazarowitz

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts