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

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?


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.

Reversing the slow chipping away of freedom

April 21, 2015

Most of the greatest fears of antigovernment people is that the government will just outright one day declare martial law or some shit like that. One has really happened is much scarier. The government has slowly over time chipped away at our freedoms little by little. We started in this country with relatively stable money, it was backed by gold, and banks could issue notes that were just iou's for such gold. Then, the government started issuing green backs, and created a central bank for them, but those notes were still backed by gold. Eventually the greenbacks started being devalued and slowly worth less gold, but they were still backed by gold. Then eventually, it was taken off of gold. When the government does this no one freaks out because it just seems like small change, its no big deal and not worth revolting about, until u look back after all of the change has been enacted and u realize, "shit, things r fucked."

This sort of tactic can be used against the federal government, and is being used right now. Several states have legalized marijuina. They have not done the honest thing by legalizing all drugs and not regulating them at all, but they have done a small change towards freedom. The federal government does not recognize the states ability to legalize weed, but does not feel it is a big enough deal to go after these states. Eventually more states one by one will legalize weed and eventually it wil be legal everywhere, and the government will not know what hit them. This tactic can be used for every evil federal law. First states might start with nullifying the more restricted gun laws, and then slowly chip away the less insane ones, until there is none left. Maybe over several generations, will can nulify the entire federal government, and if done slowly, they wont even realize it till it has already happened.

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.


View older posts »