Is This a Real “No True Scotsman” Example?

Looking up information on the privatization of the Indiana toll road, I found this interesting nugget of information on Wikipedia.

The Libertarian Party of La Porte County, opposed Major Moves quite vocally, proclaiming that “Pirates [have] return[ed] to the shores of Lake Michigan” in a news release. The toll road passes through La Porte County and also has two toll gates in that county.

Their press release reveals their motivation to have been pure interest-group politics.

While we fully support user-fee based Toll Roads, it looks to us like the proposed Toll Road Sale will pay for a lot of projects in Central and Southern Indiana. Increases in tolls will put much more truck traffic on U.S 6 and U.S. 30 but no money is allocated to improvementsfor U.S. 6 Under Major Screws*, Northern Indiana will bear the brunt to pay for road construction around Indy and South. Just like Morris, Daniels is proposing legalized theft to pay for pet projects. Republicans just don’t get it – what pays in Northern Indiana should stay in Northern Indiana.

Further on they do get around to complaining that the road will still be government-owned, so they manage to combine extremist libertarianism with their interest group politics. Ah, well, this is probably more about the quality of debate you get from any county-level party officials than about libertarianism per se. But I still find it funny.
__________________________________________________________________________
*The proposal to privatize the toll road was named “Major Moves.”

About J@m3z Aitch

J@m3z Aitch is a two-bit college professor who'd rather be canoeing.
This entry was posted in Analyzing Libertarianism. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Is This a Real “No True Scotsman” Example?

  1. ChrisChris says:

    Hey man, I’m writing you over here because I couldn’t find your email address. As you’re probably learning, BlaiseP is just a bunch of well-worded hot air. Better to just ignore him.

  2. James Hanley says:

    Thanks doubleChris. I’d decided that my last response to him was indeed going to be the last one. I just always have this hope that I can get someone to be a little more specific.

  3. Chris says:

    Haha… double Chris. I have no idea how I typed that in twice.

    The thing about Blaise is, he’s making it up as he goes along. That’s why he throws insanely obvious falsehoods out, and blatantly unthought out generalizations abound in his writing. But he writes it really well, so people feel like he’s got something to say.

Comments are closed.