Books Poetry and Literature Archive

Might be worth checking into.

Be the first to comment

Metasploit reading

Posted September 27, 2013 By Landis V

Metasploit Unleashed

Metasploit: The Penetration Tester’s Guide by David Kennedy

Be the first to comment


Posted January 29, 2013 By Landis V

Technically it’s the 29th.  It has been a busy day for a vacation.  Received and tested three new-to-me Ubiquiti M5 radios and antennas as well as two M5 radios that I previously didn’t have antennas for.  Noticed as I was looking up some audiobooks for some “can’t do anything else at all” time tomorrow that Librivox‘s favicon is remarkably similar to mine.  Hope they don’t mind, I really did create it without influence… and it’s my initials, so I do have some solid tie to it!  Hoping I might finally get around to listening to books 3 and 4 of Leviathan, though I might also be able to go for some Locke.

Be the first to comment

Be the first to comment

Property rights – allodial or fee simple?

Posted December 1, 2011 By Landis V

The proper right of ownership of land or other real property is something I’ve wrestled with for some time, and will probably continue to do so in the future. I certainly won’t solve it tonight.

Essentially, possession of property exists in one of two states: allodial title or fee simple. What’s the difference? To paraphrase, fee simple grants absolute ownership of property, except as “limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat”. Allodial title grants absolute ownership of property, but for the decision of the sovereign. Hobbes would argue that these two are essentially the same, as the decision of the sovereign is law, and that as such, the sovereign has reign to at any time to exercise the same government powers which limit fee simple ownership (see Leviathan, audio and Project Gutenberg links at bottom of article).

Fee simple bothers me, because that for which one has already paid or has taken by some reasonable force (I will not sidetrack on what might be a reasonable use of force right now, suffice to say I believe such exists), should not be subject to loss due to one’s inability to contribute or perhaps temporary hardship. Your ownership should be absolute to the extent that you require no access to common services and infrastructure, and that you are able to provide completely for your own welfare within the confines of your own property. Difficult in any case, I’m not sure whether it’s possible or not.

This is in direct conflict with my belief that the primary, and almost sole (again, will not diverge here) purpose of government is the defense of the property of its jurisdiction, and that the contribution to such defense is the responsibility of all property holders under the sovereign. Perhaps it would be reasonable that those who do not pay are subject, then, to the loss of defense of their property from within. That is to say, the right or worthiness of the individual to hold said property in lieu of remittance for sovereign defense of ownership then falls to the community – the peers, if you will – of the owner. They then have a decision to allow the propertyholder to continue his allodial title, and perhaps even to provide defense for said title of their own volition in the event of other internal or external attack on right to hold, or to take – by force or by lack of protection – the property as their own, and to take over responsibility for payment of its defense to the sovereign.

A related idea that I have considered is that a man should be free to offer for sale to another the fruits of his labor at his own discretion – specifically, this would be counter to the provisions of the Civil Rights movement. Not to advocate that discrimination based upon any arbitrary characteristic is reasonable, indeed it’s generally a stupid precept. However, at least in our current society, there are certain members whose presence is generally not desired within certain communities, and I have considered at some length whether it would be reasonable for merchants to be able to refuse goods and services to those they consider undesirable, such that it would be an impediment to the undesirable’s ability to remain within a region where their presence was not desired. If there were sufficient merchants who collectively agreed that a person or persons’ presence was unwanted, it would provide strong incentive for that individual to either find more accommodating residence. Alternatively, I cannot find fault in violent uprising from one who is oppressed in order to take what is required to provide for himself or his family.

Now I have wandered much farther from the topic of property rights than I had intended, but I’ve at least shifted some of these thoughts and ideas to copy. These are simply theories, and always evolving, but it gives a reference for me to reflect upon in the future and see how they may have evolved.

Be the first to comment


Posted June 21, 2011 By Landis V

Wickett Twitter Widget or Jetpack for WP.

Be the first to comment

Quick links to a couple of blog posts by Jeff Doyle

Posted April 29, 2011 By Landis V

Jeff is someone whose contributions and expertise in IP networking I acknowledge and respect.  He shares some good insights regarding risk in these posts (chronologically).

Close Enough

Measuring the Immeasurable

Confidence Levels and Calibration

and finally The Value of Information.

The purpose of the articles is to help build a better business case through the reduction of uncertainty, and I think the collection does a good job providing basics on how to do that.   I find considerable truth in one of Jeff’s key tenets from these articles:  If it truly cannot be measured, it holds no value.

Be the first to comment