Notes

1 In February 1969, Anguilla made headlines by voting to secede from the three-island federation of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, declaring its independence, adopting a constitution more capitalistic than that of the U.S., and expelling the federation constabulary, all British social workers and teachers, and most other foreigners. Then on March 19, 1969, two hundred British paratroopers landed and took over. In July 1969, Stiefel reported that a Royal Commission is supposed to be formed in December to make recommendations about Anguilla’s political future. They are expected to recommend that Anguilla be separated from the three-island confederation and be given domestic autonomy with Britain responsible for its foreign affairs. It is expected to take about two years to complete the changeover. Stiefel put a good spin on it by writing “the above solution would be ideal, meeting all our criteria.” Stiefel’s report proved to be accurate. In July 1971, Anguilla became a dependency of Britain and two months later Britain withdrew its troops.

2 I was amused by this exchange because I had already heard from Murray Rothbard about the long-time love affair between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden, which they had kept secret from all but a few people in their inner circle. With syllogistic logic, Rand had convinced her young disciple that he should be in love with her. The variables of age and physical beauty did not enter into her theorem. She was pleased with his ministrations for several years and publicly lauded Branden as her intellectual heir. Eventually, Ms Rand began to resemble an old cow and human nature got the better of Branden. Rand went into a jealous rage when she found out that he was cheating on her with a younger woman. This was the reason for Branden’s excommunication. Neither Rand nor Branden was entirely forthcoming in their initial explanations of the breakup. If Rand had been willing to make the affair public, she could have denounced Branden on the grounds that his behavior violated the principles of her nutty theory of romantic love, which meant that he had rejected reason itself. (Reason tends to be an all or nothing character trait in the Randian world.)

3 Rothbard published an obituary of the New Left in the March 15, 1970 issue of The Libertarian Forum, although he didn’t mention the role that the lottery played in diminishing the ranks of the draft protesters. Rothbard ended his short-lived alliance with the counterculture by publishing “Farewell to the Left” in the May 1 issue, which also announced that Karl Hess, who remained with the ultra-left, was no longer the Washington editor of The Libertarian Forum. Rothbard believed the New Left had changed its focus from libertarian issues such as war, oppression, imperialism, and nuclear disarmament to irrelevant issues such as feminism, discrimination, gay rights, multiculturalism, and environmentalism such that there was no longer much commonality of interests between the left and libertarians and, consequently, there was no longer a good reason for us to ally with them. The final nail in the New-Left’s coffin, in my opinion, was driven in by the bullets that killed four students and wounded eight others at Kent State University on May 4, 1970, which sobered up a lot of students and woke up a lot of their parents. Rothbard viewed the after-effects of this as a welcome change from street protests to peace politics, which cleansed the peace movement of the crazy left and brought in responsible people who were able to exert political pressure on Congress and the Nixon administration.

4 Erwin Strauss, How to Start Your Own Country, p. 72.

5 Ibid. p. 74.


Back to A Sketch of My Libertarian Life

Back to Libertarian Essays by Roy Halliday

This page was last updated on May 12, 2001.
This site is maintained by Roy Halliday. If you have any comments or suggestions, please send them to royhalliday@mindspring.com.