Murray Rothbard's Perspective on Forced Fluoridation: A Critical Look at Public Health Policy

Murray Rothbard's Perspective on Forced Fluoridation: A Critical Look at Public Health Policy

Murray Rothbard's Perspective on Forced Fluoridation

Introduction

Murray Rothbard, a renowned economist and philosopher, was known for his insightful writings that continue to inspire and inform the world even after his demise in 1995. His stance on the deployment of state violence to reduce risk inherent in the natural world and his views on forced medicalization were always clear. He was particularly vocal about the controversy surrounding fluoridation, a topic that has recently resurfaced with a federal judge ruling that forced fluoride in water presents an "unreasonable risk" to children.

Rothbard's Views on Fluoridation

In 1992, Rothbard boldly voiced his opinions on the subject of fluoridation, a topic considered controversial at the time. His deep research into the matter revealed the transformation of public health in the postwar years. Rothbard was firmly against the use of government power to poison the public under the guise of public health. He attributed the problem to an alliance of ideological Social Democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State.

Revisiting Fluoridation

Murray Rothbard was a vocal critic of fluoridation, a process he viewed as a form of mass medication. He argued that the benefits of fluoridation were limited to children aged five to nine, with no proven benefits for anyone older. Yet, the entire adult population in a fluoridated area was subjected to this mass medication. He also highlighted the lack of dosage control in water fluoridation, which resulted in individuals receiving doses of fluoride proportional to their water intake. Rothbard also pointed out that studies showed that while fluoridation may reduce cavities in children aged five to nine, the same children had more cavities at ages nine to 12, negating any benefits.

The Drive for Fluoridation

The push for fluoridation began just before the end of World War II, spearheaded by the U.S. Public Health Service. Despite the growing evidence against fluoridation, the government continued to support its implementation. This was largely due to the influence of Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 to head the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service. Ewing was a proponent of socialized medicine and mobilized both the respectable Left and the Establishment center to support compulsory fluoridation.

Doubts About Fluoridation

Despite the widespread support for fluoridation, doubts have been growing in the scientific community. Studies have shown that fluoride, a non-biodegradable substance, accumulates in teeth and bone, potentially leading to brittleness and cancer. However, these findings have been systematically dismissed by governmental agencies. Recent studies have also suggested that fluoridation may lead to increased bone fractures, arthritis, and other diseases.

Why the Fluoridation Drive?

The question remains: why was there such a strong push for fluoridation in the first place? The answer lies in the involvement of the Public Health Service and the influence of Oscar R. Ewing, who was not just a Social Democrat Fair Dealer, but also the chief counsel for the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA). Fluoride is a byproduct of many industrial processes, including aluminum production, and by the 1920s and 1930s, fluoride was being subjected to lawsuits and regulations. The drive for compulsory fluoridation of water transformed the image of fluoride from a dangerous poison to a beneficial substance for dental health, and provided a steady demand for fluorides to be dumped into the nation's water.

Bottom Line

The story of forced fluoridation is a compelling example of how the Welfare State came to America, through an alliance of ideological Social Democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. It raises important questions about the role of government and big businesses in public health decisions. What do you think about this issue? Share this article with your friends and sign up for the Daily Briefing, delivered every day at 6pm.

Some articles will contain credit or partial credit to other authors even if we do not repost the article and are only inspired by the original content.

Some articles will contain credit or partial credit to other authors even if we do not repost the article and are only inspired by the original content.