Supreme Court

Florida's Property Rights Abuse Lands at the Supreme Court

The justices prepare to hear a major 5th Amendment case.


In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a California regulatory agency for trying to force homeowners to grant the government a right-of-way over their land in exchange for a necessary building permit. This requirement, the Court held in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, was "not a valid regulation of land use but 'an out-and-out plan of extortion.'"

Several years later, in the case of Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), the Supreme Court nullified a similar regulatory shakedown from Oregon. In that case, local officials told a business owner she would not be allowed to expand her store unless she also handed over part of the property to the city for a totally unrelated public use. Thankfully, the Supreme Court put a stop to the scam. "Government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right—here the right to receive just compensation for a public use," Chief Justice William Rehnquist held for the majority, "in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the benefit has little or no relationship to the property."

Taken together, these two decisions stand for the rule that when land-use agencies impose conditions on the issuance of a permit, those conditions must bear a close relationship to the intended use of the property and its expected impact on the environment. In legal terms, Nollan requires an "essential nexus" between permit conditions and property use while Dolan requires a "rough proportionality" between the two.

Or at least that's what the Supreme Court has had to say about it. The St. Johns River Water Management District of Florida has a different view of the matter. In a case dating back to 1994, that agency refused to permit the commercial development of a small piece of property located in Orange County, Florida, unless the owner first agrees to transfer the title to 75 percent of the lot to the government for conservation purposes and also fund costly and unrelated improvements to 50 acres of public land located between 4.5 and 7 miles away. The owner, Coy Koontz Sr. (now deceased), agreed to the first condition but balked at the second. Had Koontz agreed to fund the uncompensated upkeep of state land, the agency admits, "the exact project [he] proposed would have been permitted."

But Koontz refused to pay what he saw as an extortionate demand and instead brought suit, charging the Florida regulators with violating Nollan and Dolan while also dodging the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, which requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes private property for a public use.

After years of litigation, the Supreme Court is finally scheduled to hear Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District next month, with Coy Koontz Jr. carrying on his father's legal battle.

For its part, the District argues that Nollan and Dolan do not apply to its actions because those cases each featured a government agency extracting physical property in exchange for a permit, rather than money, labor, or services. But that argument conveniently ignores the fact that the Constitution protects the right to both real and personal property.

Similarly, the District argues that the Takings Clause does not apply because no permit was ever issued, meaning the agency never had the chance to take any property from Koontz in the first place. But that doesn't matter. In Nollan, the California Coastal Commission also never issued a permit. The agency only issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Permit, which stated that the applicants had to first agree to the public right-of-way on their land before a coastal development permit would be granted. In other words, what matters here is not the exact timing of the permit process, but rather the unconstitutional nature of the state's demands.

Predictably, the District also employs the last refuge of every overreaching government agency: the need for maximum flexibility when crafting and enforcing regulations. Yet as the Pacific Legal Foundation, the public interest law firm representing Koontz, notes in the brief it submitted to the Supreme Court, "the District denied him his permits because he refused to accede to its requirement that he finance unrelated, public improvements. That is not flexibility; it is extortion."

Indeed, unless the Supreme Court is prepared to scrap Nollan and Dolan entirely and grant land-use agencies free rein to impose whatever onerous and expensive permit conditions they deem fit, this is an open-and-shut case of government malfeasance. A state agency placed an illegitimate and disproportionate burden on a property owner who simply wanted to put his land to a lawful use. The only party that should be forced to pay is the St. Johns River Water Management District.

NEXT: Sen. Feinstein To Introduce "Assault Weapon" Ban

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. WHAT? A government at any level engaging in extortion?! Unbelievable.

    1. More precise: One of the largest criminal gangs in a geographic region engaging in extortion? Predictable.

      I’m guessing this will be a 5-4 SCOTUS decision. Not sure whether it will be pro or con, since a majority of the black-robed enforcers for the largest criminal gang of all can’t be presumed to be against extortion.

      1. If we deny the legitimacy of government, as I presume you’re doing here, how are they a “criminal” gang?

        1. By their actions.
          Or are you saying that governments can never be criminal?

          1. He is saying that crime can only be defined by government.

            Which is just silly.

            A violation of natural law is also a crime. A crime against nature, I guess.

            1. Let me know when nature starts enforcing that law and I’ll give a shit about it.

              1. we are a part of nature. absent government prohibition i would be happy to enforce the shit out of you.

                1. So might makes right? If you’re going in that direction, govt is part of nature too.

              2. Try walking off the edge of a tall building and see how long it is before the law of gravity forces you to the ground at the rate of acceleration of 32 feet per second per second [no I didn’t make a typing error].

        2. By straying outside the bounds of the constitution, from which it’s power flows, the government delegitimizes itself.

          So yeah, I am saying they (Federal in so many ways, and state in this case) are not legitimate. That makes them a gang of criminals.

  2. Indeed, unless the Supreme Court is prepared to scrap Nollan and Dolan entirely and grant land-use agencies free rein to impose whatever onerous and expensive permit conditions they deem fit, this is an open-and-shut case of government malfeasance.

    It’s a penaltax. And a dessert topping.

      1. No. Chicken fried steak.

        1. What the hell IS chicken fried steak?

          1. Delicious!

            (Also, some more words to please the server squirrels.)

            1. Okay, that’s just vile. Why the hell would anyone do that to a steak, unless the steak was so nasty that you had to hide just how bad it was. Wait, answered my own question. I’ll not be eating that.

              1. You’re a fucking neanderthal. Chicken fired Steak is fucking awesome.

                1. Why yes, I do eat paleo, thank you for noticing.

              2. Hey do whatever you want, but I’m telling you it’s fucking delicious.

                1. You know what’s fucking delicious? My mom was over and she cooked us a roast leg of lamb with garlic and rosemary potatoes and a garden salad.

                  That’s fucking delicious.

                    1. So last night I wandered over to the neighbor’s place for dinner. The resident gourmet makes these fabulous roasted potato slices which I’ve been salivating over for years. Yesterday she added some diced parsnips, which I don’t believe I’ve ever eaten in my life. Bloody hell, those things are even better than the potatoes!

                    2. Parsnips are quite tasty. They’re like a radish’ civilized cousin. They are awesome fried in butter.

                    3. There was a heaping helping of butter involved. My poor wife is lactose intolerant and I think she was about to cry when I came home and told her how good those parsnips were.

                    4. I like parsnips…I think I’ll grow some this summer.

                    5. Me too. Those are definitely going into my garden in the spring. Now if I can just remember to water my plants…

                    6. Put some in beef stew along with turnips and potatoes. Great stuff.

              3. How do you make a good thing better?? fry it…. duh

          2. It’s a noxious concoction that is covered in semen.

          3. Known as scab steak in the Navy, and probably elsewhere.

  3. There is no downside for state agents and bureaucrats to do these things. They can force people into long and costly litigation even in cases that are no-win for the government. If that would change, maybe if there was a personal stake for BOTH participants in a law suit like this, they would think twice about trying to grab property.

    1. like if you win the lawsuit the governent has to give you land, tax free in perpetuity and without covenants, equivalent to the amount they tried to extort from you.

      1. Still no personal consequence to the officials who tried to steal your land.

    2. My ideal rule: if an agency appeals a court decision, then the responsible official should personally be on the hook for the costs of the appeal if it is unsuccessful.

      1. But if you do that then all government workers will be to scared to do there jobs…. wait…. that works for me.

  4. Nollan and Dolan are just about whether a regulation on land is a taking. So the question is not whether the government can control property owners’ land usage but whether they must compensate for exercising the control. The entire debate presumes they have the power already.

  5. When I was a teenager, my father bought a nice plantation style house, two stories, a bit worn down, sitting on two lots. Spent a good deal of time and money improving it, painting it, reworking the interior, etc. He even went so far as to have it appraised by an independent company to assess its worth once he was done.

    Come the end of the year, he goes to pay his property taxes, and they have inexplicably tripled. Come to find out, the city property inspector had appraised the house himself, and decided it was worth THREE TIMES its actual market value. Dad went to the city council and appealed, but was told there was no recourse and he would have to pay the taxes.

    Well, dad looked into it, and found out that the city inspectors’ entire system of inspection was to slowly drive up the street our house was located on, and stare at the house from his car as he passed. From that, the man decided on the worth of the home.

    Needless to say, we couldn’t afford the taxes. We ended up being forced from the last home my father would ever own because of blatant and outright corruption. Sad part is, the lot got sold to the tax-exempt church across the street. They bulldozed it and turned it into a parking lot.

    The point, though, is that local governments trying to bleed people of their money and land is rampant. It’s a wonder anybody owns any property at all, and we’re not all renters beholden to our landlord the Great State of (insert state).

    1. All property assessments are bullshit magic. You are absolutely correct that no one owns their property; they all just rent it from the government.

      1. Not just property assessments. Look at the bullshit magic that goes into determining “income”.

        1. Theft is complicated.

          1. Well, when you steal $3, you can just disappear. When you steal $3 trillion, they will find you, unless they don’t know that you stole it.

            1. Or you shoot them.

              As another famous statist once said, “No man, no problem”

    2. It’s a wonder anybody owns any property at all, and we’re not all renters beholden to our landlord the Great State of (insert state).

      Because the USA doesn’t recognize allodial title, that is exactly the reality of “property ownership”. Thank the 5th Amendment for that.

  6. “…we’re not all renters beholden to our landlord the Great State of (insert state).”

    Think again Bub.

  7. Wow, the NFL officials have suddenly rediscovered offensive pass interference. Apparently the rulebook defines it as Alshon Jeffery breathing on a defender.

    1. And then the GB defender pulls Jeffery’s jersey halfway up while the pass is in the air, but THAT’s not interference. What a joke.

  8. Question to Reasonites who favor the mass immigration of third world savages: Why do you see all the wealth in society as having been “built” by someone? Did oil companies “build” the oil they drill out of the ground? Did the farmers “build” the land they use to farm? Did cities “build” the water they take from rivers? Some wealth is created by people, innovators and such. But ultimately we are still dependent on looting wealth from mother earth. Land, water, oil, coal, iron, all these things are taken from the environment, and they all limited. And we can’t do them without polluting the earth to a large degree, heating it up and acidifying it’s oceans, permanently destroying thousands of species. So I’ll make you a deal. When you can reverse CO2 levels, create efficient green energy, assure water secuity, stop land development, and stop the inflation of land values, of prices for natural resources, and produce enough food to feed 12 billion people, then you can import all the third world savages you want, and you can pay for them too.

    1. Feel better?

      1. In your heart you know I’m right.

        1. I stopped reading after the part about savages.

          1. Me too.

        2. In my guts I know you’re nuts.

    2. Shut the fuck up, Sparky. You’re the worst character/troll ever.

    3. Well said. Newsletter y/n?

      Also, “reverse CO2 levels”?

      1. Yeah, I don’t just want the environmental damage stopped, I want it reversed. Find a way to use limitless nuclear energy to retrieve the CO2 from the atmosphere. Plants do it, you can too. It’ll be hard, of course, when you have to expend so much wealth stopping Jose from stabbing Jesus.

        1. American| 12.16.12 @ 4:57PM |#
          “Yeah, I don’t just want the environmental damage stopped, I want it reversed.”

          Yeah, well, you’re an idiot.

        2. The problem with plants is that they dump carbon right back into the atmosphere when they die. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is easy; keeping it from going back is the hard part.

          1. Plants can keep an equilibrium in terms of always having a certain quantity of carbon looked inside of them. Calcium carbonate rock, produced underwater, is also something used in the natural world. It will be hard, I know, but that’s no excuse not to try. We’ve ruined this planet enough already

            1. Plants aren’t immortal. When they die and decompose, that CO2 goes back into the atmosphere. The only exceptions are when for whatever reason, the decomposition doesn’t happen due to acidity or geologic activity (peat bogs, oil deposits, etc).

              CaCO3 production depends on CO2 dissolving into the oceans, which is a slow process.

    4. Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

      CEO Nwabudike Morgan “The Ethics of Greed”

        1. Never played Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri, I take it?

    5. I see American has gone full Chris Mallory

      1. He’s always been full Chris Mallory. The only difference is that American also hates women, fears sex and believes all evil comes from brown people or vaginas.

        He’s Chris Mallory with more misogynistic self-loathing.

  9. unless the owner first agreed to transfer the title to 75 percent of the lot to the government and also fund costly and unrelated improvements to 50 acres of public land located miles away.

    Those free ponies don’t just fall out of the sky, you know.

    1. I swear as god is my witness, I thought they could fly.

      1. Ponies make a bigger mess than turkeys.

  10. You know if people would have just do everything government has ever said this country would be perfect by now. Perfect

    1. Don’t worry, it will be. As soon as they print enough money to overcome human nature–any minute now. Okay I’m not holding my breath.

  11. OT: Her dog ate her homework, too

    After skipping a trip due to a stomach virus, Hillary Clinton faints and has a concussion.
    And guess what?
    Congressional aides do not expect her to testify as scheduled at congressional hearings on Thursday into the Sept. 11 attack against a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

    1. See this? This is important. Can’t state that enough.

      Our government has now given itself the right to spy on us, imprison us, kill us, torture us, and leave us for dead anywhere it wants for any reason at all. Without any kind of consequences.

      There was a time in this country when the government did what was best because they were afraid we would rise up as one and slay them. That time is gone.

      The only way to bring accountability back to our government is to bring back that fear.

      1. “There was a time in this country when the government did what was best…”


        1. The Southern Poverty Law Center will answer you back in a moment.

      2. You are absolutely right. The problem is that half of the country doesn’t care because free shit is more important to them than freedom.

        No government, no matter how powerful can stop 300 million people who want to put them in their place. But we have become a nation of feminized adult children who they know will not fight back.

        The country just needs to split because the differences in the progressives and griefers and freepers, and the rest of us is absolutely irreconcilable.

        1. The problem is that we have let them set write rules for politics. Then we are surprised when we loose and the GOP caves. We say eight times a day that we aren’t racist, and we let them define the term. But we know that ultimately, according to their definition, we are racists. We defend a system of intelligent American privilege that leads to great inequality. We even grudgingly defend the right to discriminate. We are forced to argue with their conception of “women’s rights” which obliges us to never question women’s ultimate right to sleep with whoever they want to without consequences. Throughout the “birth control” debate, they framed the issue as an issue of “we need it to avoid getting pregnant,” as if they had no choice about it. When Rush Limbaugh (not that I’m defending him, in fact I think he is the cause of a lot of problems) pointed out that you have to DO something to get pregnant, he was universally condemned even in the so called “conservative” or “libertarian” publications.(really they are neo-con and cosmatairan publications) Reason Magazine is, BTW, a cosmatarian publication. I encourage you guys not to give it your money.


    3. Wow. Just Wow.

      Apparently this Benghazi thing is much worse than I thought, and that is saying a lot.

      1. Worse than Fast and Furious? Because apparently that isn’t bad enough to get these assholes into one bit of trouble.

        Not really sure what they would have to do to get the American people mad enough to take action, maybe kill American citizens by drone, with no trial, and say outrageous stuff like they can arrest American citizens and imprison them without trial. Maybe that would finally do it…

        1. The problem is that most people don’t pay attention. They only think something is a big deal if the media tells them it is. So until the media turns on Obama, nothing will hurt him politically. And that is pretty much going to never happen.

        2. If you support open borders and are a second amendment absolutist, there wasn’t anything wrong with Fast and Furious.

          1. Not if you also support drug legalization.

          2. Bullshit. Obama didn’t open the border and renounce gun control. The ATF intentionally sent guns to Mexican drug cartels so they could be used in crimes, which could then be used as propaganda for further gun control. And now they’re stonewalling. In know you like to play Devil’s Advocate, and challenge groupthink, but this is pathetic.

        3. Not really sure what they would have to do to get the American people mad enough to take action, maybe kill American citizens by drone, with no trial, and say outrageous stuff like they can arrest American citizens and imprison them without trial. Maybe that would finally do it…

          Only in a Romney led America could those things happen.

          /Your Average Team BLUE Voter

    4. Is this like when Soviet premiers used to catch the flu and never be seen again? We’re not that lucky are we?

      1. BuSab Agent| 12.16.12 @ 6:06PM |#
        “Is this like when Soviet premiers used to catch the flu and never be seen again?”

        Not only were they not seen again, they weren’t even seen in the photos where they had been seen.
        The USSR; where the past is variable and the future is fixed!

  12. 37-17 Seahawks over the Bills. Russell Wilson ran in three touchdowns himself already.

    1. OMG, here we go again… Epi thinking that the Sea Chickens are actually a good team, lol.

      1. So winning big is bad? You must be a Jets fan.

        1. Much worse than that, dude. I’m a Raiders fan and my son lives in Seattle. He’s a Raiders fan also, but after the Raiders are out of the playoffs, typically by week 3, he supports the home team. So I have to hear this Sea Chicken shit from him too.

          1. That being said, you might be able to imagine why I hate the Sea chickens almost as much as the Donkeys and the Squaws.

          2. And the Seahawks just intercepted and ran in a touchdown. Again.

            1. YEAH WELL WE BEAT THE BROWNS!!!!!!

              HTTR baby!!!!

              Seriously though, the Seahawks could make it happen this year. They’re getting hot at the right time. Especially if they can secure home field throughout the playoffs, which is very posssible.

    2. The game is in Toronto. That must mean asterisk.

      1. Don’t the Seahawks [sic] already have an asterisk game?

  13. So I have studiously been avoiding the major media this weekend. I assume they are completely appalling over this school shooting. Am I correct?

    1. You have no idea.

      1. And the real story is that this guy, the Giffords shooter and the Colorado guy were all three obviously batshit insane and dangerous. So obvious that none of their friends or family was surprised it happened. We don’t have a gun problem or a school problem. We have a “we refuse to lock up the dangerously insane” problem.

        1. Uh, from what I’ve heard the family members were surprised. They knew he was a troubled kid but had no reason to think he would become violent. Same with Loughner and Holmes. People thought they were weird but no one suspected violence.

          1. So it’s a good thing they had guns in the house!

            1. Did your prescription run out again, Mary?

              1. Maybe. Give me some guns and let’s see what happens.

                1. Give you. Oh, Mary, you’ve been around here long enough to know better than that.

    2. I’ve done the same, John. I’ve also blocked multiple people on Facebook over their pathetic gun control bullshit including a cousin. These people vote for a guy who authorizes drone murders of children and first responders, and then turn around and whine about guns. Absolutely pathetic and disgusting.

      1. And the guy was clearly fucking nuts and dangerous. They totally ignore that and act like any person who owns a gun could have done it.

        1. You have a link for that, John? Every story I’ve seen has said he was just a withdrawn, friendless 20-year-old. Should we lock up everyone like that?

          1. We should hand them AR-15s

          2. Should we lock up everyone like that?

            After they kill 20 kids, sure.

            1. Kind of hard to punish them after they kill themselves.

        2. And the guy was clearly fucking nuts and dangerous.

          Yeah, I found it fascinating how many of his classmates said they were utterly unsurprised that he did this.

          Of course, the mom owned the guns, and it was her responsibility to secure them in a manner appropriate to the mental order/disorders present in her household. Guess she fucked it up.

      2. You would have sent you’re children to the gas chambers rather than murder any German children?(allusion to world war two) I oppose imperialism, and these stupid wars that kill thousands of Americans for ill-defined objectives and ideological fetishes. But I accept that children die in war. And to say that it is morally equivilant to what happened in Connecticut is fucking stupid.

        1. Kill yourself, scumbag. Do it now. Seriously.

        2. That’s right, Slappy. You’re fucking stupid. Now, will you kill yourself already?

        3. There is absolutely no reason to believe the droned children’s deaths prevented the deaths of American children, or any innocent Americans for that matter. Without that excuse, it’s murder. The fact that it was done with military technology through a labyrinthine chain of command thousands of miles away has no effect on this calculus.

          1. “The fact that it was done with military technology through a labyrinthine chain of command thousands of miles away has no effect on this calculus.”

            I think you’re being ‘generous’ with the term. Nothing in your ‘word problem’ raises more than elementary arithmetic; 2+2 will do fine to show that murder is being committed.
            No, it’s not that ‘things are happening’; it’s that our people in our government are actively and consciously murdering innocent people.

    3. Yup.
      American gun culture has reached a logical conclusion.

      1. Concern troll is concerned. Yawn.

        1. I think it is Mary on a full bender. That comment was so stupid, I assumed it was being sarcastic. But I guess these people are so brain dead, you can’t even satirize them anymore.

          1. QFT: everyone who disagrees with John is Mary.

            1. No, everyone who acts like a bitch is Mary.

    4. “Am I correct?”

      I’m guessing it’s been a weekend of drama-whoring and ‘remembrances’ of people other people never met.
      I’m sure each and every one of the whiners has my absolute best interest in mind as they attempt to push their agenda draped over the backs of the dead.
      And assuming the ‘misunderstood’ psychopathic little twit was the shooter and did kill himself, at least he saved the taxpayers some money and prevented even further tin-pot analysis.
      My sympathies to the friends and families, and I’ll understand if you point out that’s not really worth a good goddam to those who really suffered.

    5. I assume they are completely appalling over this school shooting.

      At this point, it’s all about the guns. Nothing but the guns. And without the qualification that these kinds of acts when juxtaposed against the fact that there are tens of millions of gun owners in the US, and hundreds of millions of guns, aren’t even enough to legitimately be called statistical blips.

      1. I just checked. My pistol still hasnt killed anyone…or so it claims.

        1. You never know. Pistols are sneaky little fuckers, always running off on their own and doing god knows what.

  14. Americans will not give up their precioussssss guns until they feel safe without them.
    They will not feel safe until their society becomes less focused on “the individual”.
    And that won’t happen unless they embrace less-individualist economic policy.

    And that won’t happen.

    1. Hi, Mary!

    2. I would reference history as to what happens to a population when they surrender their right to bear arms. A high percentage of the time submitting this right is followed by genocide.

      But that can’t happen here right??

      1. Like it happened in the UK or Australia?
        Try moar harder.

        1. Boot to the head| 12.16.12 @ 7:10PM |#
          “Try moar harder.”

          Try moar cherry-picking, shitstain.

  15. Nice.

    We got a racist Malthusian watermelon troll for Xmas.

    1. Is that before or after the 5 Golden Rings?

    2. “racist, Malthusian, watermelon”: possibly the greatest collection of adjectives ever assembled.

    3. Is that the internet equivalent of a lump of coal?

  16. So good to have Mary back in the blog in so many different guises. Really spices things up. Not.

    Plus, Lions suck AGAIN! Report at 11:00 on “Ballsuck Sports”!

    1. “Plus, Lions such AGAIN!” Not as much as the Chefs.

  17. We have a “we refuse to lock up the dangerously insane” problem.

    You’d fit right in. David Brooks would kiss you right on the mouth.

    1. The Late P Brooks| 12.16.12 @ 7:05PM |#
      “-We have a “we refuse to lock up the dangerously insane” problem.-
      You’d fit right in. David Brooks would kiss you right on the mouth.”

      When this sort of circumstance comes up in CA, the comments typically blame Reagan for emptying the psycho-wards in a ‘rethuglican’ effort at saving gov’t money.
      Usually someone posts a correction mentioning the ACLU lawsuit. But not always, and the lefties go off to damn Reagan and demand people be incarcerated at will.

      1. I’ve heard that countless times from a neighbor of mine. He seems to have no idea that all those nuts were let lose under Carter.

  18. Each year, more than 20,000 children go to U.S. emergency rooms with gun injuries, a new study estimates. That number is 30 percent higher than what researchers had previously found.

    1. Probably because the previous researchers didn’t define 18 and 19 year olds as children?

    2. From the link:
      “from newborns to 19-year-olds,”
      Did you know children can vote?
      Hey, Boot! You’re an idiot.

      1. because we may decrease some injuries, but not all, we should do nothing.

        you are the idiot.

        1. 20,000 < 3,000,000.

          You’d save MOAR CHILDRUNZ banning ladders.

          Well, probably not.

        2. OMG! We can’t predict or control Black Swan Events!

          Even though it won’t be effective….DO SOMETHING!!!!

        3. Boot to the head| 12.16.12 @ 7:30PM |#
          “because we may decrease some injuries, but not all, we should do nothing.”

          Yeah, shitstain. Anything for the greater good, right?
          I’d say, just off hand, incarcerating you, making sure you have no access to the web, writing materials, or voice communication, could easily raise the average IQ in the US by several points.
          So when are you going in?

      2. Not every fall involves a ladder…

          1. No…BAN GRAVITY!

            1. Fuck yeah! I’m sick of that shit breaking my beer mugs!

            2. Fuck! How could I have missed the obvious!

            3. We could force children to lose weight, which would reduce the force of impact when they fall.

              1. But it’d also reduce the cushioning of the impact…

                I say we stick with banning gravity.

              2. We could, but then the Farm Lobby would complain.

                Easier to just repeal the Law of Gravity…and Thermodynamics while we’re at it. Thermodynamics causes fires, you know.

                1. That’s an awesome idea. If we repeal thermodynamics we can stop people dying from old age too.

  19. a new study estimates.

    Made up number is made up.

  20. It’s a good night for Reasonable.

  21. It’s quite amazing that people(maybe multiple?) can sit there all night either spewing bullshit for shits and giggles, or quite possibly worse spew bullshit because they believe it.

    Bring back eugenics.

    1. What’s so bad about eugenics? What’s bad about wanting to live in a society of good genetic stock? What’s wrong with not wanting to live in Idiocracy? This is why we need to keep abortion legal, hell I’d even say subsidize their birth control if that is what is neccesary. We need to control the population. Only a few people still realize the truth. If you want to make a small difference, at least to know you didn’t sit by and let it happen, you can donate to my favorite charity, Project Prevention.

      1. So much for even pretending to be libertarianish. I assume Top.Men like you get to determine who is worthy of living and/or breeding?

        1. I never said anything about coercion, I propose a program of:
          1) Free abortions, birth control, and sterilizations.
          2) Immigration restriction.
          3) Welfare dependent parents get their kids taken away.

          1. And none of those things involve coercion? HAHAHAHAHA

            1. JESUS CHRIST!?!? What’s so bad about eugenics? Welfare dependent parents get their kids taken away?

              I also notice that you don’t say ‘free sterilizations FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING.’ So, American. Who would be getting these sterilizations and who gets to decide who gets sterilized? I assume the people who get to decide will have nice brown shirts and weird mustaches, as is their wont.

  22. More lives would be saved by a ban on indoor bathrooms than by a ban on guns.

    1. “so we wouldn’t save as many lives as by banning something else, so lets not ban anything.”

      DUMB da DUMB DUMB!

      1. But I thought you were worried about saving lives. I thought if you truly cared about the wellbeing of the universe you’d want the best return on your investment, rather than pursue an investment with diminishing returns (at best).

      2. Just what do you propose we ban? I’m curious?

        1. It doesn’t even matter what the “what” is. It’s absurd to believe that government can prevent -any- death. At best it can mitigate what already happen to be very, very minor risks.

        2. Banning guns that shoot buckyballs would be a good start.

          1. You can pry my Gauss gun from my cold dead fingers.

      3. Boot to the head| 12.16.12 @ 7:45PM |#
        “DUMB da DUMB DUMB!”

        Ha, ha. See how clever Boot is? Well,…

      4. And 15 minutes after I asked the question?


        1. You don’t seem to be taking my assault buckyball ban proposal seriously.

          1. Well, it would be pretty cool, actually.

            1. There’s just the problem of getting the person to open his mouth and swallow the balls, but once that technical issue is resolved…

  23. It’s funny how people who pretend they want to ban stuff they don’t like “if it’ll save just one innocent life!” never seem to get around to banning automobiles.

    1. Or pretty much anything they might happen to enjoy and/or agree with.

    2. Or bicycles. Or vegan food.

    3. Or dihydrogen monoxide.

      1. Never gets old.

      2. That’s scary stuff. And it’s the principal component of bongwater, which is another reason to ban marijuana.

        1. Not only that, but about 175,000 children die from dihydrogen monoxide poisoning EVERY YEAR! FOR TEH CHILDRUNZ!

          1. I hear it’s used in nuclear reactors, too. And submarines.

      3. But they want to ban carbon dioxide. What part of carbon-based lifeforms did they miss?

        1. Carbon monoxide isn’t a greenhouse gas, so why don’t we just ban catalytic converters?

  24. Uh oh. The bozo is being purged, and now it looks like we’re arguing with ourselves.

    1. Aw, kinda funny to see that much stupid.

    2. They should replace the posts with “comment by deleted idiot”.

      1. More like “opinion we don’t agree with.” Better watch out, your next in line here.

        1. The only time I had a comment deleted was when I speculated about an obscene and degrading act with a female Reason writer. None of my disagreements have been deleted.

          1. Maybe it’s the environmental stuff they just can’t stand. I remember they deleted a lot of tony’s environmental rants. Tony brought up an idiotic point, granted, by all the replies were things like “go die in a hole you dirty collectivist.” They never got deleted. Guess I’ll let the kids have their fantasy world. When I was four I thought the resources were endless too. After all, reasonism is all about exponential growth without consequences.

            1. ^ Did this ever happen? I’ve never seen a Tony environmentalist rant get deleted. I’ve argued with him over his environmental opinions multiple times, and never seen him get deleted.

              Your environmental arguments are astonishingly retarded. Astonishingly. People have been telling us we’d run out of fuel for 50 years. Yet every decade or so, it turns out there’s even more fuel than we possibly thought there could be. One day, we may very well come up with a renewable energy source, and fix the problem once and for all. It’s certainly possible.

              Your problem, in addition to the fact that you’re basically Hitler, is that you know nothing about history. You don’t understand how all your anti-Mexican arguments were used against the Irish. You don’t know that people were talking about fuel shortages in the 60’s and 70’s. You don’t know that people were fearing WHALE OIL shortages way back in the day, a problem that was fixed by our modern oil economy. You know none of this because you’re a fucking idiot.

              1. “You don’t know that people were talking about fuel shortages in the 60’s and 70’s.”
                Of course that’s just because they were experiencing them. 3$ gas was not considered “normal” back then.

        2. American| 12.16.12 @ 8:52PM |#
          “More like “opinion we don’t agree with.””

          Moar like “idiotic comments we’d rather not have on our site”, asshole.

    3. Just when we got the pitchforks and torches ready….always spoiling our fun.

  25. WTF? NBC is interrupting the football game for BO’s address? You gotta be fucking kidding me. Why didn’t they preempt the idiotic pregame show?

    1. More importantly, who cares what P.Bo has to say? It’s all bullshit anyways.

      1. And it’s not like if NBC didn’t carry it no one else would. CBS, ABC, and probably Fox will carry it. They’re obviously just trying to force people to watch it by removing alternatives.

        1. “They’re obviously just trying to force people to watch it by removing alternatives.”

          Camera-whoring. No more, no less.

      2. But, but he’s being perfectly clear.

  26. Did the Empathizer-in-Chief bring his onion-infused hankie to dab his eyes with?

  27. Looks like someone is deleting my comments. I really must have pissed one of you guys off, haven’t I? Oh well. You can keep your collection of Go Kill Youselfs. I’m sure this will make a fantastic case for your ideology.

    1. None of us can delete anything. It is the wise and terrible squirrels, before whom all tremble.

    2. Sssh, don’t fight it. It’s almost over. Easy now. Easy….

    3. American| 12.16.12 @ 8:34PM |#
      “Looks like someone is deleting my comments…”

      Ad paranoia to stupidity; you got American!

    4. Looks like someone is deleting my comments. I really must have pissed one of you guys off, haven’t I? Oh well. You can keep your collection of Go Kill Youselfs. I’m sure this will make a fantastic case for your ideology.

      Enjoy the rest of your life being willfully ignorant.

  28. OK, BO is coming on now and I don’t have cable. So I guess I’ll start some laundry.

  29. Why, look there!
    A football game with a national audience, and who should shove their mug into it with crocodile tears? Why, it’s OBOZO!
    I wouldn’t spit on the man if he were on fire.

    1. Unfortunately, the last time that happened was when we invaded Canada.

    2. For those minus local listings, the 9ers are now leading 7-0 on a Kaep TD toss.
      Would someone please pull the plus on Obozo’s mic?

  30. Looks like Lanza’s mom was a prepper. Heeeeere we go.

    1. Marsha believes that Nancy ? paid ?148,400 a year maintenance by ex-husband Peter ? was a member of the Doomsday Preppers movement, which says people should prepare for end of the world.

      I’ve never heard of a prepper referring to him or herself as a “doomsday prepper”, and at most a tiny minority are preparing for actual end of the world scenarios. Most are preparing for things that have already happened many times in history: currency/economic collapses, govt suspensions of rights or coups, etc.

      1. You expect the Telegraph to understand the nuances of an American subculture? Fact gets in the way of the “narrative” about those unenlightened colonials!

    2. Because having supplies on hand for emergencies–I don’t know like hurricane Sandy–is the ultimate in abby normal right-wing behavior . It’s so much better if we all whine on camera for food, water, and gas from our all-knowing Top Men.


  32. Now they try and ban my IP address. Didn’t work as you can see. Come on coward. Explain yourself. Reply to this comment.

    1. American| 12.16.12 @ 8:50PM |#
      “Reply to this comment.”

      You’re an idiot. There’s a reply. Want a second opinion? You got it: You’re an asshole.

      1. I don’t want to hear your opinion. I want to hear from the deleter.

        1. American| 12.16.12 @ 8:59PM |#
          “I don’t want to hear your opinion.”

          It’s not an opinion, asshole, it’s a fact.

        2. Those responsible for the deleting have been deleted.

          1. Very very meta. *golf clap*

        3. Did you file your 27B/6 first?

  33. OK, Brady gets on complete, and then Arther Murray. Got it covered for you until the liar-in-chief decides he’s got enough camera whoring.

    1. Can’t they just run his teleprompter lines along the bottom and leave out the video? Gees have they no humanity?!

      1. BuSab Agent| 12.16.12 @ 8:54PM |#
        “Can’t they just run his teleprompter lines along the bottom and leave out the video?”

        Ya know, they’d have to pass on his ’emoting’, and we couldn’t have that!
        Fuck that asshole.

        1. I’m not watching it. Does he feel our pain?

          1. Nope. haven’t had the chance to inflict it.

          2. I didn’t see it all, but I’m gathering it’s a buildup to a policy initiative.

    2. I can only hope that he goes through halftime so I don’t have to see Bob Costas’ inevitable nugget of wisdom after this weekend.

  34. Brady tosses an INT, tackles the 9er. 9ers deep in NE territory. Is the asshole finished?

    1. Sevo, you’re a scholar and a gentleman.

      1. BuSab Agent| 12.16.12 @ 8:58PM |#
        “Sevo, you’re a scholar and a gentleman.”

        Thank you, BSA; we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programing. The technical problems have been solved, but Akers can’t seem to find the space between the uprights.

        1. A lot of men seem to have this problem, if my spam filter is any indication.

  35. This game is sloppier than Epi’s mom.

    1. The one fucking time I want the Patriots to win, and they’re sloppier than my mom. Thanks, Tom.

      1. They’ve had some trouble with the NFC West this year.

  36. We secretly replaced the Patriots with the Ballet. Let’s see if anyone notices.

  37. Now they try and ban my IP address. Didn’t work as you can see.

    You’re a sly fox, moving from McCafe to Arby’s. “They” don’t stand a chance.

    1. Happiness is just a curly fry away

    2. The squirrels ALWAYS win.

  38. American| 12.16.12 @ 9:03PM |#
    “What’s so bad about eugenics?”

    OK, no foolin’. You’re going to have to look up-thread, observing the left-hand alignment to find this, but here it is!
    American actually asks this question.
    There are lefty and statist ignoramuses who post here, dumb to the core, but even shithead doesn’t bother to defend eugenics.
    This troglodyte does.

    1. Of course you accept the liberal perception of reality whenever it suits you. What’s wrong with eugenics. Charles Darwin believed in it, as did his cousin and his son. Educate yourself.

      1. And then this:

        American| 12.16.12 @ 10:03PM |#
        …”Educate yourself.”…

        Uh, yes, please do.

        1. “I suggest you read a book on the benefits of eugenics and dangers of third world savage invasions before you embarrass yourself further.”

          1. Guys! Darwin believed it! We have to believe what Darwin said, right? Surely evolutionary biology hasn’t advanced since Charles Darwin! He is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, of all genetic science.

            Darwin is risen. Truly, he is risen.

      2. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd:
        “Of course you accept the liberal perception of reality whenever it suits you…”

        I can remember being accused of ‘liberalness’ (not the classical-liberalness). It was quite a while back. It was also as stupid an accusation as American tries.
        Hey, American! You’re an idiot and an asshole!

      3. After the environmentalist BS you’ve posted in this thread, I’m not sure why you’re accusing others of being secret liberals

  39. Please give generously to the Pacific Legal Foundation, who are protecting your property rights in the USA.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.