It is plausible to note that the ruling destroyed the distribution chain by the wine fabricating companies including chain stores, wholesalers, and retailers (Bravin A1). The system reduced benefits since it boosts unemployment in the United States. Although the decision might create a new market niche for the country’s products, the benefits are enjoyed at the expense of collapse of local infant/inefficient industries.
Kantianism suggests that although some actions could bring about more happiness than the others could, there is a possibility of being prohibited. Based on this principle, the Supreme Court ruling was morally upright since it encouraged equality, transparency, and fairness in the market. In fact, if all states and countries could act and emulate the earlier ruling, then globalization together with its benefits could be a nightmare. There is the essence of collaboration and competition in the market, which benefits all market participants. The earlier law did not respect the goals of the human being but rather was used to protect the local industries and presumed consumption of alcohol by young Americans. According to Kantianism theory, the moral of an action does not depend on whether the presumed action is wrong or right on their consequences, but rather on whether such action fulfills its duty (Bravin A6).
Out-of-state wineries can still conduct online businesses with their customers in a socially accepted manner. Tax is a fundamental ingredient to the government that assures benefits to the greatest majorities. In this perspective, online out-of-sale wineries would be considered dealing in a moral perspective only if they contribute a significant amount of the profits as tax to the government to support the establishment and creation of public goods.