TED Conversations

John Barrios

This conversation is closed.

Private property rights.

Should a private property owner (specifically commercial in this debate) be able to decide who can or cannot enter his/her land? In America, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 federally prohibited segregation or discrimination based on sex, gender, ethnicity, etc.. But is it right that those who rightfully own land are forced to allow everyone to use it? Keep in mind that this is not a debate over racism or sexism, it is merely an inquiry on the rights a property owner has.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jul 3 2011: what if a property owner happens to control a significant proportion of stores in any area or country and he excludes all hispanics from buying things there? other stores could capitalize on your disadvantage of being hispanic by charging you a higher price because they know you couldn't go anywhere else. that is something else you'd have to consider, since its their property, then they could charge more for one set of customers than another. so you can have exclusive property rights and limit these scenerios or have a minor restriction and eliminate that.

    think about the implications of blacks being banned from stores in this place, whites from this place, asians from this place...you would also be creating hostility from whoever is banned toward whoever is banning them. would violent crime increase? would theft increase? maybe you'd even create a race war
    • thumb
      Jul 3 2011: Who knows, it may even give people that extra push to start their own business. It is true that people could be taken advantage of but with personal liberty comes adaptation and self-reliance-- two things America has crushed with an increasingly powerful government presence. Also, you have to keep in mind that the vast majority of companies would not implement segregated prices or stores because well, most people aren't racist. Also, it would be a PR nightmare. I'm not saying it's a good idea just that it's logical to allow a property owner to distinguish who can/can't be on their land. Once again, you make some very very good points Gary. Thank you for allowing me to see the other side because what you say definitely makes sense as well.
      • Jul 3 2011: just because you don't think most people are racist and it would be a PR nightmare doesn't mean it wouldn't happen anyways. the media has a way of shifting opinions if they feel it's in their best interest to blame something on one group and could then limit their freedom. i could definitely see not being able to buy anything in utah unless you were mormon.

        For commercial purposes it makes no sense to be able to discriminate who and who can't come on their land to buy things, but they can certainly restrict who they want at their residence. the point i was making before was who knows what the implications of such a policy could be. it would have far reaching effects beyond just not allowing people to buy something at a particular place.
        • thumb
          Jul 3 2011: I'm not saying it wouldn't happen. It most definitely would. It would make no sense to anyone but the owner. That's the only important part. Of course they can because a violation on a residential land is called trespassing. Why not on commercial land as well? After all it is still land and one still owns it.
          The point you made before is very good. The implications for those who practice segregation as well the segregated could definitely get out of hand but it would be up to law enforcement and the government to defend personal liberties with some sort of punishment.
    • thumb
      Jul 3 2011: what if? it is still his property. nobody else can enter without permission. why would any hispanics or anyone else go there if they are not welcome?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.