My comment about freedoms was not in reference to fluoride. It was in response to your blanket dismissal of anyone who doesn't "care about public health" whatever that's supposed to mean. "Public health" as you're using the term appears to translate to "it's for your own good". Then your earlier statement reads as a blanket justification to run roughshod over other's freedoms while mocking them for objecting.

Your logic can be summarized as X is often harmful to people who choose to do it therefore restricting voluntary participation in X does not infringe freedoms in an objectionable manner. Hopefully you can see the absurdity when it's laid out like that.

> there's very strong data that tobacco is carcinogenic and so it's hardly a dystopian nanny state for tobacco to be restricted

The argument isn't "specific thing makes this a dystopian nanny state" it's "particular philosophy rapidly leads to a dystopian nanny state". They're quite different claims.

Children aren't generally viewed as having full freedoms so the associated age restrictions don't seem particularly relevant to this conversation. That said "public health" is hardly the only possible justification for restricting tobacco sales to minors.

> Similarly, it hardly infringes freedom if there's minimum standards for food hygiene even though you may personally enjoy dysentry, food poisoning etc.

The imposition of food hygiene standards generally serves to bring stability and security to the market by regulating something that end consumers can't easily judge for themselves but which nonetheless can harm them. Notice that restaurants generally remain free to serve undercooked items to customers but they must go out of their way to make the customer aware of this fact. Despite your dismissive misrepresentation of my views I do in fact view the restrictions on raw milk as a fairly severe violation of freedoms despite the fact that I have no personal interest in consuming it.

> There's a world of difference between a dystopian nanny state and just ignoring public health issues that would typically affect the poorer segments of society.

I hope you're having fun knocking down these strawmen. Investment and outreach isn't ignoring.

> it seems like a disingenuous argument that anti-fluoride people make about it infringing their freedom when they don't seem concerned about removing fluoride from those supplies that naturally have higher levels.

You finally managed to point out something interesting. So a question. If non-potable water is treated and a byproduct is left behind is that a problem? Note that in this hypothetical there was no intent other than accomplishing the goal (ie making the water potable) at a reasonable price point. Are you entitled to water of a specific purity level, or merely potable water, or something else entirely?

Now what if the byproduct was left behind intentionally (ie the option to remove it existed and was trivial) but it was nonetheless a byproduct of a particular treatment program and treatment of some sort was genuinely necessary?

I think there is a fundamental difference between intentionally introducing something and failing to remove something, and the motivations matter because they can set precedent for future actions.