Thats the exact libertarian point. You are showing an extreme misunderstanding of the libertarian position which is: none of these policies should be federal policies (they could be federal guidelines). People can get the fluoride 1000 other ways. The raw milk ban should also not be in the federal domain. If states or localities want to ban it, awesome. But perhaps there is a way to make a pointless product (Raw milk is a dumb product, I agree) safer without banning it? Simply put the liability onus on the distributors and producers for the harm.

Sadly, that chart is completely unconvincing to people who are vaccine deniers (we even have people who deny the existence of germs and viruses now), they point out that sanitation and clean water improved over that same time, and that deaths from these diseases appear to drop before the introduction of the vaccine.

It does not matter how many times a pro-vaccine mandate person flouts a chart like that, the skeptic will riposte with one like this:

https://lifeandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/measles-vaccine-cdc.png

Yes, I know it doesnt tell the story, but they are not in this to get into the details of data, they are in this to keep one group of people away from forcing them to comply with rules they personally do not agree with.

Having vaccine mandates being state laws is the libertarian position. However, I do not think you are telling the whole story. There are specific consequences for a state that does not follow CDC vaccine guidelines:

non-qualification for certain grants, as well as grant termination

loss of head start funding

loss of Title IV and IDEA program funding

loss of 317 funding

loss of funding for VFC

failure to comply with Medicare and CHIP programs may result in loss of those funds

Now, a lot of this is to fund vaccines, so it may be moot, but what happens if a state still vaccinates but not in the way the CDC sets out in a guideline? MMR mandate, but no Covid mandate?

You cant say vaccine mandates are state laws in a box, those laws are heavily influenced by federal laws.

I agree with #4, but the shame there is that this would be fine if the people who ignored Darwin were the only ones suffering from doing so. But everyone pays for those peoples' healthcare in some way, and they cause excessive costs there. So if you support Darwin, you would also support limited government payouts for gigantic organizations like HHR, CDC, Medicare, Medicaid. If the libertarian condition were actually involved here, those who make dumb choices would be far more the receiver of the consequences of those choices. Instead we all have to pay.

In the end, if a mandate is a good idea, it doesnt need to be a mandate. I don't support RFK, I think he is a kook along with the dopes who swaddle X and Facebook with nonsense (like Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone, etc), but forcing people to do things especially in a medical arena has shown to be a terrible way of doing it.