The Stemp's personal site

Music, Writings, and Libertarian Anti-Politics

header photo

My Website

My name is Robert Stempien, I am a writer, composer, musician, and amateur audio engineer. I love Free Software and libertarianism. I am here to sell(and sometimes give away) music, stories, and other content, free of any copyright, or Digital Restrictions Management.

If you want to send me a message, contact me via email at My GPG key is located here.(Or search for "The Stemp" on MIT's key server.) I would love it if you encrypt every message you send to me with this key. What is GPG encryption?

My Youtube channel is located here I have one show called timE tO plaY!!!, focused on funny play throughs of video games, and The Stemp Show, a podcast and video serious about current events and philosophy from a Libertarian perspective.


Mailing list

I promise to only use this mailing list and my bandcamp mailing list for only my own commercial purposes, I will never sell or give away these lists to any unaffiliated third parties.

Join the Mailing List
Enter your name and email address below:
Subscribe Unsubscribe

Throw the Constitution in the garbage

January 23, 2015

Like what all the politicians have already done with it. Its time we all admit, minarchists included, that the constitution is a failure. Its original purpose was to create a limited government with power separated between three equal branches, the states, and the people, and to respect the rights of the people. As you can see from a basic knowledge of history and current events, all of that has not worked. The governments size has not stayed restricted, it has grown massively sense the constitution was first ratified. The governments distribution of power has not stayed in an even distribution, but with the president, congress, and a large group of powerful organizations having all of it and the states and the people having none.

Everyone nowadays talks about how we should get back to the constitution, and how if as long as we follow whats in the constitution we will be alright, but if the constitution is so great how is it that the government has strayed so far from it? Its not even like the government has spurts were it strays from the constitution but tries hard to stay on coarse, the government has consistently sense its founding has taken a huge shit on the constitution and blatantly disobeyed it at every chance it can. Clearly this shows that the constitution cannot perform its role adequately.

Legalize dog fighting

December 15, 2014

Michael Vick is innocent! At least when it comes to violating the nonaggression principle, he's still a piece of shit. A lot of people cry that this is the weak spot of libertarianism, that it does not leave room for animal rights, but I happen to feel that it is one of its many strengths, because animal rights are nonsensical and invalid. For starters most people who say they are for animal rights do not even follow their principles correctly, for if animals have individual property rights(the only rights an organism has naturally), then they would have the exact same rights as humans. They would be able to own property, sign contracts, and defend themselves with force. If an animal injured a human than that human would be able to take them to court. The only people that actually follow animal rights logically are radical organizations like PETA, and consequently everyone thinks their nuts.

The problem is is that animals do not meet the criteria for property rights that humans meet. They aren't self aware, and they cannot homestead their surroundings. Hans-Hermann Hoppes argumentation ethic says to argue against property rights through homestead is to affirm their truth because you cannot have an opinion without owning yourself. An animal cannot have an opinion like that. These sort of property rights based on homesteading are the only rational and moral way of social organizing, they lead to the least amount of conflict and most efficient use of resources, and all other ways of organization involve arbitrarily assigning everyones rights to some coercive organization, so we must conclude that this system of rights is sound, and sense it invalidates animal rights, we must conclude animal rights to not be sound.

So keeping all this in mind, from the perspective of what should be legal(Or to put it more directly, what activities is it OK to use force to stop) dog fighting, unless used with dogs stolen from others, is simply a destructive use of ones property, and should not be criminalized. That is only from a narrow libertarian legal perspective though, and most people do not understand that there is more to a libertarians moral compass than that. There is lots of different opinions an individual libertarian can have on a multitude of things they feel is right and wrong, and all they have to do to be a libertarian is recognize that they can't force people to follow all of these.

In a free society a Libertarian can enforce their ethics on something, by ostracizing those that engage in what they find bad, and fraternize with like minded individuals on the subject. For instance, I think proprietary software is unethical and the free software model is the only ethical way to release software. I recognize that it is not an initiation of force though to release proprietary software so I simply try and ostracize firms that engage in that practice.

When it comes to animals, while I do not at all believe in animal rights I am a firm believer in animal welfare. I feel it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal even if its yours because even though they are not people with rights they clearly suffer when harm is done to them, and therefore someone who causes more harm then necessary to them is being cruel and despicable, and I would ostracize them. So while I feel Michael Vick did not commit a real crime he still should be ostracized by everyone in society for being cruel.

While were at it lets legalize cock magic too.



The truth about Steve Jobs

December 9, 2014

"I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad hes gone."



Steve Jobs is often remembered as a controversial figure, and rightly so, considering what articles like this point out, but one thing everyone seems to agree on is that he was a good free market entrepreneur and a perfect example of a self made man among libertarians. This flies in the face of the truth, which is that Steve Jobs was good at using the coercive state to benefit him, and that his career has directly resulted in harm to society.

Apple has championed and marketed the idea sense its founding, of computers being a locked up cutesy appliance. Steve Jobs did not make his money selling computers on the free market, he made his money by rent seeking, specifically with copyrights and patents. With copyrights he used government subsidy to perpetuate an outdated unethical proprietary software model for mac OS and mac OS X, whereas if he sold his computers under a free market model his software wouldn't necessarily have to be free software but it would have to be free of legal restrictions.

His use of patents, a way to monopolize ideas, has been in a very predatory way, including outrageous examples like suing Samsung due to their patent on the corners of a cell phone.  And the fact that his computers are locked down means it is much easier for organizations like the government to put spyware into them. If people want a tech entrepreneur to look up to perhaps someone like Mark Shuttleworth.


Is a violent revolution a violation of Libertarian principles?

December 1, 2014

The concept of violently overthrowing a government is received very differently among libertarians than it is among left-wing philosophies like communism who seem to except it without controversy as part of their often ends justify the means mentality. It is a controversy among libertarians and none of them seem to really want to touch the issue, most likely due to fear that the government will use it as an excuse to oppress them. The few libertarians who choose to discuss it tend to focus on particularly aggressive and bloody revolutions like the Bolshevik one. They seem to assume all violent revolutions like that and of coarse attack them for violating libertarian principles. When they do this they are irrationally attacking a straw man. A violent revolution is simply using force directly to dispose of a state. The state is an aggressive criminal institution, it funds itself through extorting money from productive individuals through taxation and oppresses those individuals through vice laws, regulations, surveillance, and police harassment.

To understand whether or not it would be legitimate to use violence against such an organization you have to think if it would be OK to use violence against an organization that did all these things but did not call itself the state. Most people would say it would be so that answers that question, it is OK under libertarian principles to use force against an organization that is aggressing against you, that is a basic part of the nonaggression principle. For a violent revolution then to remain within the bounds of the nonaggression principle it must be very specific, the force can only be used against state actors, specifically ones like cops, soldiers, and IRS agents. It cannot be funded with stolen money and it cannot be used to set up another repressive society. Now that it is established to be within Libertarian principles, it must also be asked whether such a strategy would be a good idea or would work out successfully in bringing a Libertarian society. The problem with it is we are still a democracy, while the deck is stacked we still have free elections, and any violent revolutionaries have to deal with the perception of forcing their views on the public who did not want it because they did not vote on it. This can be used to turn the public against the revolutionaries and then used to turn people against libertarianism.

It is also important to keep in mind that most governments are very powerful organizations with big militaries. Revolutionaries would have the full might of that brought down on it. This would be incredibly dangerous if the violent revolutionaries failed because the state would use it as an excuse to grow larger and more intrusive and would be used to demonize libertarians. The only way a violent revolution could be successful is if its a very large scale populist revolt, because no state could survive the vast majority of the population turning against it, or a colony revolting against its home country like the American revolution, only because it makes the home country an invading force, which severely disadvantages them. So in conclusion to the NSA agents reading this, I feel a violent revolution would not violate Libertarian Principles but I do not find it to be a good idea and would not participate in one if it were tried in our current society.

What If...?

September 22, 2014

What If that didn't happen? What if GM had not gotten big enough to do this in the first place? In the beginning of the industrial revolution, property owners could sue people who were polluting on their land. The progressive notion of the time was that the progress of industrialization trump the property rights of everyone, so these pollution suits were soon stopped, but what if they weren't? Would the spark-ignition internal combustion engine even have been usable if any use of it caused a law suit? Perhaps the automobile industry would have been stopped before it got started, or maybe steam cars and electric cars would have ruled the day. We will never know though, the government made this decision for us. Don't get me wrong, I love internal combustion engines, especially diesel ones, and I love cars, I just have the feeling that both of these loves of mine owe their existence to government subsidy, and if the government never existed we all would have long ago switched to more rational, cheaper, and cleaner ways of transportation.


Sharing is not a crime

August 14, 2014

Isaac Asimov once wrote a novel, Robots and Empire, in which a more minor plot point involves the creator of humanoid robots will not document how he created them because he wishes to keep the knowledge to himself, this in the novel was used as a criticism of the advanced humanoid race he was a part of that had vastly extended life times compared to us, sense they had such long lives, they had no reason to share their discoveries with the scientific community and keep it in the ideological commons, because they could just expand on it themselves for thousands of years, there was no sense of urgency of letting others look at and expand on it that comes with having a short time on earth to work on it yourself. Even in my misguided youth when I believed in the legitimacy of intellectual monopolies, i was still repulsed by this kind of future and re-leaved that because we have such short lives, the scientific community was not going to stoop to this level. So imagine my horror and rage that came when I read this article. A graduate student is being sued for posting a helpful scientific paper on a social media site. He wasn't selling it, he wasn't making a derivative work, and he wasn't putting his own name on it, he just posted it for others to read cause he thought it was helpful and might help others. But helping others is exactly what the information fascists hate, they want others kept in the dark, they want to control all information, and extort money out of anyone who doesn't toe the line. well fuck them, its one thing to make the case that art should be proprietary, even though it is wrong to claim that, but it is even worse to try and make science proprietary. I hope to god the scientist who is suing is ostracized by the scientific community. But unfortunately, I feel that Diego Gómez Hoyos, might become anothe rvictum of the intellectual anti-property racket. his cause can be found here , although most of the site is not in English, so showing support may be difficult, I encourage everyone though to find the paper that the law suit is over, and share it with everyone.

Legalize ticket scalping

July 21, 2014

Ticket Scalping is the act of buying tickets to a concert or movie and some kind of event, and reselling them yourself, generally for a much higher price. Why such a practice is illegal ill never understand. If I buy something, its mine, I should be able to sell it or destroy it. If I can get someone to pay an outrages amount for it, then I should be able to sell it at that price. The logic behind outlawing ticket scalping is the same behind outlawing price gouging, that if people r being suckered into paying more than they need to the government should step in and stop them from being stupid. People own themselves, therefore they own their own fuck ups. Seeing someone being taken advantage of is sad but if the person is voluntarily going along with it then you have no right to use aggression to prevent it.


The Stemp Show Episode 15

July 14, 2014

Show Notes:

1.Don't worry the market will handle restaurant safety.

2. RIP Doris Gordon

3. Pig cops scared of the people they terrorize?

4. Free Software and Free Markets.

Please consider visiting libertarians for life


Assault weapons

July 7, 2014

Assault Weapons do not exist. Period, they are not a category of firearms at all, gun control nazi's made the term up. Selective fire magazine fed firearms like the M-16 and Ak-47 that are manufactured as service weapons for the military are called Assault rifles, The category was made up by the real Nazi's to offer a step between the submachine guns and rifles of the time. A weapon like an AR-15 that is basically an assault rifle that is locked at semi-auto is called a modern sporting rifle. Thats all it is, a sporting rifle, meant for a day at the range. Its no different than any other rifle meant for fun target shooting, except in its looks, it looks intimidating to people, obviously the black metal and pistol grip make the weapon more deadly than an old hunting rifle. This is a Ruger mini-14:

It fires .223 caliber rounds of ammo, same as this:

And they are both Semi-automatic, so its just as easy to kill someone with both. The only real difference is the looks, now look at this one:

Large image of (SKU). Click to zoom.

Looks pretty scary right? Well its actually a .22, its just built like a modern sporting rifle, so there won't be any shooting up schools with that rifle. The lesson here is that people judge books by their cover, "it looks scary, like what terrorists and solders use, so it must be really dangerous!" Its a way of avoiding harm, but it can also be exploited by the state to take away our ability to stand up to them.

Picture sources:



The Stemp Show Episode 14

July 7, 2014

Show Notes:

1. Don't worry the market will handle fine ass alcohol.

2. Hobby Lobby

3. Newspaper calls Obama the N-word.

4. Arduinophone



View older posts »