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.
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 email@example.com 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.
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.
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.
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 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:
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.
1. Don't worry the market will handle fine ass alcohol.
2. Hobby Lobby
3. Newspaper calls Obama the N-word.
Thats what these thick "Libertarians" are, if you can even call them Libertarians. What they basically believe is that the belief in the nonaggression principle is not enough, what must come with it a believe in the culturally liberal values of tolerance, egalitarianism, feminism, etc. Apparently it is not enough to avoid initiating force against people because of their life style choices, you must also celebrate them with those people. And what is to be done with people who are culturally conservative and find some of these lifestyles obscene? like half of the damned libertarians in existence already, and um, like half the fucking country? Well I don't know but I bet the solution involves initiating force. The problem with the thick fucks is that their believes aren't really libertarian, they are statist. Most statist philosophies involve forcing the believers cultural attitudes on everyone at the barrel of the gun. One of the points of libertarianism is that you can have whatever cultural beliefs you want just don't force others to follow them. If these people simply held culturally liberal beliefs to be important to them that would be fine, they just can't mix these beliefs up with libertarianism. Hell, if they even simply were dickheads to people who don't share their cultural views that would be fine too, I do it to people who don't agree with me on free software or heavy metal music, just don't put a gun to their head when they disagree. Culturally conservative people used to be very bad about wanting to force their morality on others, and they lately seem to have grown out of it for the most part, I guess Culturally liberal people need to do the same.
1. Don't worry the market will handle basic research.
2. Student loans are stupid and so is government involvement in education.
When will socialists learn? You cannot magically make wages higher through the barrel of a gun, and thats what minimum wage laws are trying to accomplish. Seattle just raised theirs to $15 an hour. I'm personally quite pissed by this. I in my own job have just recently been given a raise above minimum wage, I worked hard for it, I was very proud to realize that my labor was worth more than the artificial price floor the state puts on labor, and now some fuck in Seattle automatically makes more than me. and they are talking about doing the same nationally. Anyone should be able to figure out why this can't work in the first place, because all it does is fuck over the unskilled workers more, because a firm would be stupid to pay workers more than they are actually worth, and if they must do it a little it will come out in much higher prices on the goods and services being marketed. The fact that no one realizes this shows how stupid our society truly is, and the fact that no one questions the ethics of forcing business owners to pay their employees a certain minimum just shows how morally bankrupt our society truly is. Fuck all of this, sorry I haven't posted in awhile, but everyday it gets harder to keep the cause of property rights and the NAP going when things like the minimum wage law is still more popular than ever.
The hatred of SUV's is a hatred of private property rights, bouegeoisie culture, and humanity itself
I have found lately a popular hatred or strong dislike of the class of automobiles known as SUV's. when you can get passed the smugness of their demeanor you get to arguments that on the surface seem like harmless Euro garbage, but when you look deeper you see some very destructive thinking. I'm gonna go over some common anti-suv arguments and dissect them, I'm not gonna cite any sources because most of these arguments I have gleaned have come from forum posts that I don't want to find and I don't find it appropriate to repost words from private individuals onto something like this blog.
1. They are wasteful/excessive: I do not understand what is wrong with excess, it is part of acquiring personal wealth, and it is a big part of modern society. Having more than 3 pairs of clothing is excessive, or having a large house, or a house in general really. This same argument is often used against gun ownership and really private property rights in general.
2. They are not very fuel efficient: This on the face of it is a legitimate criticism, unless a diesel engine is stuck into one of these the fuel economy is simply dismal. But most critics don't stop there, they go on that individuals some how are hurting the rest of us for driving it, and then they seem to hint that consumers should be restricted by law for driving such a vehicle, or at the very least car companies should be restricted from making them. Which really means they think a gang of criminals should coerce people for their decision.
3. Rich stay at home moms drive them: This is the most disturbing criticism of them all. The critics sneer and hate on families where the dad has enough money to let the mom stay home and take care of the children, comparing her to a spoiled child. I can't imagine what kind of childhood these people must have had to look down upon a healthy, well off, independent family.
And here is where we get to the deeper level of their criticism. The hatred of the SUV is the hatred of of family, and the bourgeois, capitalistic culture that allows families to form. These people hate it because this environment breeds healthy peaceful children that don't need the state, and we can't have that now, can we?
The most hypocritical part about these people is a lot of them are big fans of sports cars, even though they really do not need the nimble handling and cornering abilities, nor the powerful engine. I guess sports cars get a pass because they represent excess in the high class European way, and because they aren't at all useful for families, being that most sports cars only have two seats.
Me personally, I'll take the big excessive car, house, and guns, and lots of other consumer goods, and any left wing critics can go fuck themselves and suffer in their dilapidated commune.
Many people explain libertarianism as being socially Liberal and fiscally conservative. Because we are against both drug laws and gun laws mainly. Besides the fact that most left wing liberals support the war on drugs or at least heavily regulated drugs and most right wing conservatives aren't against most guns or at least want to still heavily regulate them.
This definition is fatally flawed though, because it completely misunderstands libertarianism. Libertarianism is more rightly defined as the belief in the nonaggression principle and property rights, no where in this is liberalism nor conservatism. Libertarians do not want low taxes to conserve government finances, they want to abolish taxation sense it is simply extortion under a new face. Libertarians do not want to legalize gay marriage to make social toleration of everyone a social norm it says the government should get out of marriage because the state, a criminal gang should not be involved in a moral institution that is high above it in the first place and force its version of that institution,(Whether it is the secular tolerant new kind of marriage or the traditional religious one) on people at the barrel of a gun.
People come up with this definition because they cannot think out of the traditional left-right spectrum, so they feel libertarianism somehow can fit into this spectrum when it simply does not. The left right spectrum is a propaganda tool to make people think statism is some how too faces completely different from each other and the great ruse keeps people distracted. The real separation is between politics and anti-politics, coercion and noncoercion.
Its important that one does not even have to be culturally liberal to be a libertarian, you could be a racist tight ass baptist that excludes everyone off of his property who isn't a racist tight ass baptist or you could be a super PC tolerant free sex hippy who lives in a commune and shares and tolerates everything and still be a libertarian, you just have to recognize the nonaggression principle and private property rights through homesteading, so you have to not force your weird ass cultural beliefs on everyone else.