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

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.


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.


View older posts »