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 th3st3mp@gmail.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, for awhile I did two youtube shows on it but I have sense canceled them, I am keeping them up as an archive.

 

<!--[if !(lt IE 8)]><!--><!--<![endif]-->

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:
Name:
Email:
Subscribe Unsubscribe

Libertarians for Trump?

March 31, 2016

Apparently there is a new trend this election, with tons of libertarians,(see here, and here, for example, but theres more) are supporting Donald Trump for president. Now, their main argument seems to be that he is anti-establishment, and that the mainstream media and the Republican party machine does not like him. Bernie Sanders is the same way though, and if you ask these people if they support Bernie they usually claim, "well no, I still do not really like his positions on most issues" But how can they not say the same for The Donald? The big positions Trump seems to be focusing on are a very big anti free trade bent, and a very big anti immigration bent. Both are completely at odds with Libertarianism. Yes, even his immigration stance, I don't care that Stefan Molyneux and Hans Hermann-Hoppe are both anti immigration, wanting the state to restrict individuals from crossing into its arbitrary and illegitimately acquired territory and then forcing businesses to register who they employ to make sure everyone is here "legally" does not square up with Libertarian principles, or for that matter basic free market principles.

The fall back argument Libertarians are using is that Trump is less pro war than most establishment Republicans and that somehow translates into him being a discount Ron Paul on foreign policy. While it is true that Trump has been critical of the war in Iraq, I find it hard to take him seriously as an antiwar candidate when his proposed solutions for groups like ISIS are so gruesome that our current pro drone, pro torture, military personal are claiming they cannot execute his orders if he becomes president, for they will be unlawful.

Libertarians would do better in this election to use the widespread disappointment with candidates like Trump and Hilary Clinton, and use it to sell a less extreme Libertarian candidate like Gary Johnson. Or perhaps maybe look to ways of shrinking the government, like Agorism, Nullification, and Succession.

Are you pumped for the 2016 election?

January 22, 2016

You shouldn't be, its gonna be exactly like every other election. Politicians are gonna promise things, theres gonna be cool candidates and lame candidates. Most will promise the world, there will be people saying this candidate will be the one, the one that will change everything, to make America the way its meant to be. Nothing will change though, if the star candidate wins, everything is going to go on like clockwork. Things will slowly get more totalitarian, business regulations will slowly increase, along with taxes, spending, and inflation. Personal freedoms will slowly erode, the amount of countries we occupy will increase, thats how it is. The federal government is a parasitic institution, all it does is grow bigger and scarier, it is not set up for the kind of change most people want. Look at Ron Paul, he had popular support, and good principles, something very rare among candidates, and it looked like he could actually win. But he didn't, the Republican political machine would not let him, and even if he did win, he wouldn't have been able to do anything, the people in the federal government, and all the politcally connected elite(congress, the courts, Unions, big corporations, defense contractors, etc) would not have let him do anything to shrink the state, thats just how it is right now. so remember with this coming election, your vote won't matter, things will continue to get worse, until something happens, like our economy collapsing, or the states getting tired of dealing with this shit. So if you must vote, vote third party, they will never win, but its a nice middle finger to the establishment.
 

Gun control is dying

January 7, 2016

It might not seem like it, but its obvious once you know the signs, for instance, watch the frustration in people like Obama's face whenever he gets on the stage to talk about gun control, they know the American people are rejecting gun restrictions, and they don't like it. The fact is, anytime gun control measures are proposed gun sales go up, that should tell you something about how the majority of people feel about this, hopefully it means people are starting to remember the whole point of the second amendment in the first place.

Things might seem bad, because no mainstream candidate for president seems very principled on guns, even the Republicans have proven time and again that they wont do anything to lessen gun restrictions, just not add anymore. But what not everyone realizes is that there is alternative vehicles to abolish gun laws, and they seem to be working well. States like Montana have practically nullified most gun laws, sheriffs from all over have pledged not to enforce them, and the gun lobby itself seems to get stronger every day. For instance, the Gun Owners of America is attempting right now to fight the federal ban on machine guns, talk about ballsy. So in short, hopefully gun control will die soon, it would be nice to have some of my rights back atleast.

Why can't we have a steam car?

October 22, 2015

Steam engines seem archaic to most people, an old relic of the past rightfully replaced by the internal combustion engine, but thats until you read about advanced steam technology. Steam has benefited greatly from the use of a condenser, which unfortunately came along to late. It recycles the steam back into water and then it is reused in the steam cycle again, creating a closed system without a water tank. some of the modern ones, like the cyclone steam engine, have basically advanced enough that they do not need a boiler, heat exchangers can do the job, between that and the condenser its form factor has been reduced smaller than the gasoline engine. This cyclone engine can run on almost any fuel, because all it does is heat the steam, and because all steam engines produce their full torque at 0 rpm, then there is no need for a transmission. Because the fuel is burned externally it can be burned more thoroughly than an internal combustion engine and it is run through a heat exchanger on its way out, so it produces a much cleaner exhaust gas.

All of this makes it sound like the steam car is ready to go. It has solved everything that is the stated goals of environmentalists, much better than electric cars, so why aren't we driving them? why haven't environmentalists latched on to these things? The simple answer is that this was created by the free market and environmentalists want the government funded solution to succede, but the answer I think is true on some level is far more disturbing. This will sound kind of tinfoil hat like, but I think ultimately the government and the evironmentalists don't want us to drive cars. The private automobile as a concept is one of freedom, liberation, and self control. You can choose where and when to go, you leave on your terms. The state does not want that, it wants to control us, it wants to heard us into cities, into public transportation, where they can keep track of us. The push to only electric cars is because the government knows they will never be affordable for the common man, they don't want them to be, if there is only the electric cars then only the politically connected elite will be able to drive them, and therefore they will be the only ones that drive, it will become a luxury only for the elite, just like the soviet union, only we will all be green, yay! no global warming, but it doesn't really matter because everyones lives will be stark, brutish, and short, just like the Soviet Union....

An open letter to my grandpa and other Republican grandpas

October 8, 2015

When conservatives like Donald Trump talk about forcing companies to register their employees and other measures to check and make sure they arent employing illegal immigrants, they r violating the free market principles they claim to uphold, a true free market means other than restrictions against violating the property rights of people, (defrauding them, stealing from them, assaulting them, or in the case of GM, killing them) there are no restrictions on a business. That means a business can choose to say no blacks aloud or everyone has to work for 1 dollar an hour, but employees and customers can freely tell that business to get bent, and because of the free competition that comes with it, most businesses will be reasonable, otherwise they wont stay in business, and people act like illegal immigrants take jobs from americans, but the reality is they do the horrible jobs that no american wants to do, i know i complain about being a line cook, but i know in my heart that it is way better than the kind of low end farming jobs that most illegals are happy to do, and most people are worried that illegal immigrants abuse government services like welfare, but the reality is its very hard to get things like welfare when u aren't an american citizen, and even if it were, more illegals on welfare is just another reason to abolish it, people like donald trump, when they advocate positions like this, show they do not really care or believe in a free market, that would be fine, but perhaps they should stop advocating a free market, so they can stop ensnaring nieve libertarians, and people who philosophically are libertarians, but haven't taken the time to find the correct label for themselves because they keep thinking the Republican party will represent them, just something for u to think about, i know u are older and the far future isnt going to effect u, but i will have to live with the politcal mistakes your generation and dads generation has already made, and it would be nice with this coming election that people would wake up alittle and start changing things for the better, so i can confidently bring children into this world when i am ready to(which, dont worry, wont be for awhile), nowing they wont be brought into a rapidly decaying chaotic world, which we will become, if we continue on our current path.

Child Support Laws are Immoral

July 16, 2015

There I said it, go ahead and burn me at the stake now, I've thought it out for a while and I just don't see how child support laws are defensible under the nonaggression principle. Parents, should not be forced to raise their children, I know, that also sounds awful, but hear me out. If you do not want to raise a child the laws are already set up to where it is very easy to put them up for adoption if you don't wish to raise your child. This is how it should be, you should only raise a child if you want to do it and can do it. If neither of those are true than you should give the child up to someone who can. Child support is the financial side of raising the child, without the physical aspect of it, forcing a parent to be financially responsible for their child is stealing from them and is just as bad as forcing parents to raise their kids. This doesn't mean I think dads who abandon their kids are not shitheads, and should be ostracized by society, because I do, they just should not be forced.

There is one exception though, when a rapist impregnates a woman, he should be forced to pay for a child's upbringing as restitution, mainly because they have unjustifiably forced this burden on a woman. I also think child support might be established contractually, if you enter into a contractual union with someone else.

This kind of begs the question, what is the loose woman to do? Well, I think the answer is birth control, I'm not of the belief that promiscuous people should hold back their urges, infact, I love the promiscuous lifestyle, I just think more people should do the smart move, and utilize the protection methods they learned about in health class.

Why we should legalize assisted suicide tomorrow

July 2, 2015

This we, I had to do something every pet owner dreads, euthanizing my beloved cat, Mittens. I had him sense I was five years old and he just was too old to continue living without being in pain. But as I went through with it I realized something kind of sad.

When animals get too old and are suffering, we do the merciful act of ending their suffering in as painless a way as possible, but if a human being is old and suffering and wants to be put out of their misery, the government steps in to prevent it. Why are we allowed to be compassionate and end the suffering of animal life, but not allowed to do the same for human life? Which is arguably worth more. The problem is religious people, they seem to feel that the human body is a temple for god and that committing suicide is a sin. This is really diabolical when you stop and think about it because it denies self ownership, which is the only moral and justifiable way of assigning ownership of people.

Now, I'm a Deist, not a Christian, so I believe in a much kinder, more rational god, that does not like to constantly ordain our behavior, and I believe when he created us he gave us ownership over our selfs. I also believe he does not like to see human suffering, so to me, people who resist legalizing assisted suicide, and suicide in general, besides initiating force against everyone that may want to take their own life, are going against gods wishes, by perpetuating human suffering.

So lets end this archaic and sadistic prohibition on suicide and assisted suicide, as soon as possible.

The U.S. is full of secret police

June 12, 2015

Ah, the secret police, an Authoritarian government's go to group for cracking down on dissenters. The Gestapo, Stasi, and many more were used historically to harass and murder anyone who dared to voice criticism against their government. Most governments only have one organization dedicated for this, but the United States is unique in that it splits the role between several different organizations.

The FBI can intimidate you and hit you with bogus charges based on unconstitutional laws and railroad your ass. The CIA can straight up kidnap you. The IRS can financially ruin you, the ATF can massacre you, and surprisingly, the DNR can do whatever it wants to you if you might have accidently run afoul of one of the many stupid regulations based around the states monopoly on natural resources.

My theory is that the United States is fast becoming a police state and is trying ever more desparatly to not appear to be one. Having one organization just devoted to hurting dissenters would make them look very bad, so instead they use different organizations to do different parts of the secret police function. That way they can have their cake, and eat it too.

Liberty in the United States

May 18, 2015

LiNK, which stands for Liberty in North Korea, is an organization thats goal is in the damn title. I've seen a lot of advertisements for this site sense "The Interview" came out and hating on North Korea's totalitarianism seems to be the new hip thing.

Now, I don't want to hate on this organization, because I totally agree with its goals, I would love it so much if liberty was brought to North Korea, infact, I'd be gushing with joy if North Korea successfully transitioned to a prosperous, stateless, voluntarist Libertarian society, I'd even move there. But I think people here in the United states shouldn't focus on this. We should focus on bringing liberty to our own society.

Right now we live in a country where all your conversations are spied on, you cannot own a business without going through millions of red tape, where your income is robbed from you at gunpoint, and where your imprisioned for putting certain drugs in your own body. Im not saying we should ignore organizations like LiNK, but maybe we should focus more on improving things in our own land first. Its sort of like all those charities that focus on third world impoverished countries. I like them and am willing to give them money, but I just think we should focus on helping the poor people in our own area.

To breed, or not to Breed.....

April 27, 2015

That is the question,

Child rearing seems to have become a weirdly polarizing issue lately, with the age old closeted racist notion that you must outbread those of a different tribe than you, and the neurotic, environmentalist notion that no one should breed because it contributes negatively to overpopulation. It even seems to be talked about within Libertarianism sometimes, With Aaron Clarey's No Children Manifesto, and Stefan Molyneux making quite afew videos on the issue. (heres one).

Heres my take on the issue, it doesn't matter, not one bit. First off, overpopulation is a myth, don't believe me?

(link)

Yah, so don't feel guilty about creating children, theres plenty of room for all of us, and you have no obligation to create more of your own tribe. There is nothing that makes someones race or religion anything special that makes it so it has to outbreed others, and that it would be devistating if that race went exstinct. I often hear conservative fearmongering that white people will become a minority or extinct, and I don't get why that matters, who cares if a group voluntarily ceases to exist? As long as its not through genocide or something like that then it does not matter. There are some people that do not want to raise a child, they do not want to spend the time, resources, and effort, to raise a well adjusted person, and theres nothing wrong with that. It might be selfish, but it is not bad selfishness at all, if you want to keep your capital for yourself and lead a happier life, then no one has the right to scorn you for that. At the same token, everyone has a biological drive to copy themselves, and that manifests in a lot of people as an emotional desire to have kids, to create them and nurture them and love them. If they are financially stable and have pulled themselves together enough mentally to healthily raise them, then go right ahead, have a shitload. Everyone wants to make every issue a controversy nowadays, but this one fundamentally does not matter.

View older posts »