Free-Market Economics and Litigation
Update: while we’re taking care of our loan refi issues, the website has been more or less left to fend for itself. Personally, I want to to throw it all out and start from scratch, but my partner assures me that the material here is worth saving.
So what we’ll probably do (if I can keep myself from visiting my USA internet casino sites when I have a free moment) is edit these pages and try to keep only the most essential information…with a bit more ‘user-friendly interface’, so to speak.
Meanwhile, we have a lot of new content to put up, including more helpful resources and less of my rambling on and on about economics and ethics. There’s this recent story about a baby who was returned to her parents after the state of Missouri took her away simply because they are blind (the name of the place where it happened? Independence. You can’t make this stuff up!).
Well, that’s about it for now; I have to go find a few casinos that accept paypal because there just aren’t any left (and I’ve got a virtual bundle burning a virtual hole in my virtual pocket!).
From the free-market standpoint, anyone selling goods or services should be primarily concerned with removing barriers to the growth of their business. Should a company determine that serving a segment of the population entails more investment than profit, it is only reasonable to conclude that the company’s focus would be better served elsewhere. Indeed, a private company may decide not to offer additional services for any reason; the marketplace will provide the eventual response as to whether this decision is in the company’s best interests.
However, we do not exist in a free-market economy. Our freedoms are to some extent regulated and limited by the will of the majority, or at least by the various interests of influential non-majorities (refer, for example, to the legal status of a player at an online casino, USA especially). Even when accommodation is not in the best interests of businesses, and/or compliance does not significantly add value to the company, businesses are required to comply. A company may only avoid compliance if it can be proven that the business would suffer undue hardship as a result. The burden of proof is squarely on the business, the defendant in such cases.
A moral and ethical imperative seems to rest with those requiring some form of accommodation — simply put, the nice thing to do, the right thing to do, is to do what you can to give people with and without disabilities the same opportunities. Our society’s progress can certainly be viewed as having less to do with technological innovation than it does with increasing the quality of life for the largest number of people. Equality, one of the purported cornerstones of modern civilization and Western Democracy especially, is only served by providing all members of society with the same level of opportunity.
Related but secondary to the debate itself is the state of litigation in modern American society. Many observers and participants feel that we as a people are too eager to litigate; in some cases, it may be seen as similar to online slots, a ‘get rich quick’ scheme featuring overstated claims of damages or suffering against a company that is both financially large enough and conscious enough of their public image to seek a quick and lucrative settlement.
However, there are also genuinely important cases that define legal status and provide precedent for public policy decisions in the future. Progressives, reformers, activists, advocates…any number of persons interested in public policy changes may find the civil suit to be a more effective and high-profile method of change. While this alone may cause objections from some segments of society, it is important to distinguish the ‘frivolous’ lawsuits from the justifiable pursuit of positive social and legal progress.