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, for awhile I did two youtube shows on it but I have sense canceled them, I am keeping them up as an archive.


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

Never forget the Armenian Genocide

April 18, 2015


The 24th will mark the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide perpetraded by the Ottoman Empire in WW1. When it comes knowledge of atrocities popular culture seems to only focus on the Holocaust, and maybe the Rwanda Genocide. Both of those genocides were awful, and it is important to keep talking about them, but people need to know about other atrocitise throughout history, so they know that horrendous evil like this can happen anywhere, not just by the comic book villian style Nazi's. The surviving remnants of the Ottoman empire, modern day Turkey, have never owned up to the crimes commited by their ancestors, and infact completely deny it ever took place. That frankly sickens me, the Turkish would not even have to apologize to make me happy, just a simple, "Yep, our ancestors fucked up" would be enough. I hope this coming anniversary of the event will get more people talking about it, because other than the band System of a Down there does not seem to be many people in popular culture talking about it, where is the "Shindlers List" or "Hotel Rwanda" of this attrocity? I appologize if anyone finds the picture in this post shocking, but I encourage anyone reading about this to google pictures of it, and any other genocide, look at the disturbing, sickening images of its victims with both eyes open, for if your government ever starts talking about exterminating a group of people, maybe these disturbing images will give us the courage to stand up and say, "Fuck you, never again!"


Handling abortion in a Libertarian society

March 31, 2015

Note: The point of this post is not to make the case that abortion is a violation of the NAP, but to simply explain how abortion could be dealt with in a free society, so Libertarians who think abortion is not a violation of the NAP will not like this.


Abortion is a very controversial and emotional issue, both in mainstream politics and within libertarianism. Going against convention, I, a nonreligious, fairly cosmopolitan young person, am morally opposed to abortion, going as far as to say its an initation of force and violates the property rights of unborn children. I do not use the term pro-life, to describe my beliefs, because it, and its corallary, pro-choice, polticize the issue and frame it in terms of a liberal vs conservative, right vs left debate, and as a libertarian, I reject that framework, and the terms that go with it.

With this in mind, I do not support a law banning abortion. I do not think the government could properly enforce a ban on abortion, and would most likely use it as an excuse to violate rights. I instead think that the courts and police should be privatized. Instead of a centralized police force kidnapping people for breaking a law written by a monopoly organization arbitrarily and taken to a centralized court system that has the sole right to declare rulings, I think instead if someone, lets say, James, violates the rights of Samantha, by stealing her sexy sports car. Then Samantha could sue him and take him to a private dispute resolution organization. Lets say the court rules that he indeed stole her sports car, he would have to pay restitution, perhaps returning of the car, plus paying for damages. James would most likely get a bad reputation and be ostracised for his actions, and this would make it very hard for him to do any economic transactions. Infact, if he did enough antisocial behavior like this he would most likely have no where to go, his utilities would be shut off and all the roads, shops, apartments, etc. would shut him out.

Now, to stop abortion through this system, lets say a woman is pregnant, and her lover, has not abandoned her and wants to help raise the child. But she decides she does not want the child and goes and aborts it. The dad can then sue her for murdering his child and collect restitution from her, and she would gain the reputation of a murderer. But what if the mom and dad both did not want the child and decide to abort it, then the grandma could sue on the childs behalf, or the uncle, or anyone within the family. Normally parents posses guardianship rights over their child, but if they do something like abuse their child, or kill their child, then they have given up their guardianship rights, because they are not properly making use of them to take care of the child, so therefore, they would be up for grabs for the next eligible person, which would be a relative. Lets say no one steps up to sue on behalf of the child, then the parents can still be ostracised for their actions, and can become social outcasts.


Mandatory voting?

March 23, 2015

Obama recently suggested that mandatory voting would really benefit the United States, here is the video where he states this:

Besides the moral issue that mandatory voting involves forcing people at the threat of imprisonment to pick between two candidates who, when elected, will continue to oppress them, mandatory voting also involves forcing the around 50% of the population that currently does not vote, to vote. You know what those people are? you probably know a few of them, they come in two varaties, apathetic, and stupid.

The apathetic ones don't have any opinions on politics, they cannot tell you what kind of government they would like to live with, they don't have any sort of political philosphy, and they really don't know any current issues with the government. They can be very nice people, and infact are much more desireable to be around than a died in the wool Republican or Democrat, but the fact that they will be forced to vote now means they have to pick from candidates they know nothing about. This would probably further marginalize third parties, because none of these people even know they exist, so voting for them will not even be an option they will consider. Plus, it will already contribute to the problem of people choosing candidates based on their charm and good looks, something charismatic Obama probably is hoping for.

The other group, the stupid, are your classic white trash, high school dropout, redneck, fuckwads. These r the people that discussing politcs with will make you shiver where you stand. These are the people that want to shoot all the mexicans, force every product to be made in America, and think the military is the greatest organization on Earth. Most of them are two illiterate and lazy to try voting at the moment, but when they are forced to do it, all bets are off, and I dont know about you, but if mandatory voting enters the United States, I think I'll be exiting it.

Mens Rights are stupid...and so are womens rights

March 9, 2015

The mens rights movement seems to be gaining traction on the internet, and feminists predictably are having none of it. Most of the criticisms feminists have, that MRA's are diluted, that they are not perpetual victims in their culture, and that they don't deserve some special rights, I agree with, but I think feminists are idiotic by not seeing how all those same arguments apply to them. Yes there are ways our culture shafts men, and women, but our culture is not set up to be some giant conspiracy to put just one gender down. They both are diluted with their cause, and they both are completely wrong when it comes to rights.

I am tired of all these groups demanding special group "rights" which in the end just become special programs and money from the government. There is no such thing as womens rights, mens rights, gay and transgender rights, and civil rights. Rights are something every person has, that cannot be taken from them by someone else, the only rights that make sense are private property rights based on homesteading. Your right to own yourself and your justly aquired property does not infringe on someone elses right, exorcising my right to not have my car stolen from me, for instance, does not conflict with someone elses right to not have their car stolen, but having a right not to be discriminated against involves taking away someones right to discriminate, having a right to equal pay involves taking away the right of an employer to choose what to pay their employees. Plus, the concept of special group rights is collectivist and contradicting the principle most of these people hold that everyone is equal in worth. If a woman is equal to a man in competence then why does she needed special rights based on her womanhood? If a black man is the same on the inside as a white man, then why does he need special rights based on his race? I believe in individuality and so I only judge people on their own merits, so I don't see why these groups need special rights, so maybe their supporters arent as enlightened as they make out.

The thing that really bothers me about mens rights in particular, is how alot of libertarians seem to be getting into the movement now, and fancying themselves mens rights activists. While some of the causes and ends of the MRA's may be just(atleast compared to the goals and ends of feminists nowadays) it still is a mistake any libertarian should know better than to make, which is to pretend there are more rights than simple property rights.

What the hell happened to Tim Shafer?

March 6, 2015

Can't we let gamergate die already? We won't be able to if people like Tim Shafer keep stirring the pot on it. What I think he was intending was to stir up controversy on this to bring himself back into the spot light, because he realized just how irrelivent he has become. I guess it worked, up until I watched this video I haven't payed much attention to Tim Shafer, I like his games, but i'm in a minority, adventure games are not something the gaming consumer wants anymore, and his never seemed to do very well financially in the first place.

The whole gamergate controversy really pisses me off in the first place, yes, the people spamming Zoe Quinn with rape threats are complete lunatics, yes, female portrail in video games are very inaccurate and sexualized but guess what? Men are portraid inaccuratly too. Look at the protagonist of any first person shooter and it is an unrealistically buff macho grunting soldier, it goes above and beyound the buff men portrayed in action movies in its unreality. If you go back to the early days of action games like Doom and Quake, you will see that Id software did not even feel the need to give these protagonists names or personalities, if that isn't dehumonizing, idk what is. Now some critics might object and say that the portrail might be unrealistic but it is still unfavorable to men, to which I say that the protagonists in these video games in real life meet the definition of a psychopath. Now most guys may fantasize about being one of these people, but any normal well adjusted adult male realizes that the whole "Solve problems with fists, ask questions never" mentality of these characters is obserd and immoral, and has no place in a polite society, much like many females may fantasize about being the super sexy damsel in distress whisked off her feet by a strapping buff male like in these games, but also realizes that isn't workable in reality, thats why its called fantasy! Its not supposed to be realistic.

Much of the criticisms feminists and social conservatives have on video games can also be directed at pornography, in that it is unrealistic, demeaning to the people it portrays, and negatively effects the individuals perceptions due to the unrealism. Both are missing the point with these formats, they are not meant to show the realistic side of the human condition, they are meant to be escapism, I know when I watch porn that that isn't how a healthy sexual relationship is supposed to be, hell, some of the positions the porn stars use look downright uncomfortable, and I know in real life that women are not perfectly sculpted thoughtless sex objects, and that men are not perfectly sculpted killing machines, I watch porn and play video games for the thrills, for the fantasy, to see somthing fun I cannot get in real life, if someone cannot separate the fiction in these media formats from reality and they are over the age of 7, then they have a mental disorder, and should get proffessional help.

So in conclusion, fuck gamergate, and fuck Tim Shafer, I openly advocate pirating every video game he ever makes and ever has made, but quite honestly if you insist on using proprietary software I think it is much better to pirate it anyways.

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.


View older posts »