Sure no question on lack of adequate counsel. However how about the most basic right of any conceptual awareness of even the right to breathe? I find nothing more ironic than the following couple of paragraphs to "exhibit" the real legal limiting of access in the present scenario that is definitely the epitome of the limitlessness of slavery.

So, here goes:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46399

That link is a link to the Congressional Research Service pdf that gives the Legal Issues in COVID-19 Vaccine Development and Deployment
Updated November 25, 2020
It is certified and has a little blue ribbon confirming that the pdf is entrusted and golly gee shareable. So that should squash any censor at least from the US.

That link is a pretty interesting read about all the "commercial" details about commercial engagement activities. What is most interesting about that little bit of Research Servicing are the following two paragraphs. The two paragraphs are most definitely not the most interesting of all the paragraphs of the 30 plus pages, with footnotes. The two paragraphs really do document publicly the most limiting constraint options based on the "WORD" of any words in any legal document that allows total constraint options including possibly even the right to breath any form of any "gaseous" substance as air.

Number ONE: Para 3 on Page 30

"While Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause is expansive, a majority of the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius agreed that there is a discrete limit to this authority—that it cannot compel individuals to engage in commercial activity.281 According to Chief Justice Roberts, in a portion of the opinion not joined by other Justices, but largely echoed in the view of the four dissenting Justices, the Commerce Clause did not empower Congress “to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing.”282 While it is uncertain whether this conclusion constitutes binding precedent,283 it suggests that a direct federal mandate on individuals to receive a vaccine may be susceptible to challenge because such mandates could be construed as compelling individuals who are “doing nothing” to engage in the commercial activity of receiving a specified health care service.284 On the other hand, a federal mandate that requires vaccination as a condition to engage in existing economic activities, such as employment, may raise fewer constitutional concerns.285 "

The most critical sentence of those particular sentences of the first excerpted paragraph from the cited source is Number 285.

Number 2: Para 1 on page 32

"In a declaration effective February 4, 2020 (the COVID-19 PREP Act Declaration), the Secretary invoked the PREP Act and declared COVID-19 to be a public health emergency warranting liability protections for covered countermeasures.300 Under the COVID-19 PREP Act Declaration, covered persons are generally immune from legal liability for losses relating to the administration or use of covered countermeasures against COVID-19.301 "

Those two paragraphs are examples of what is way beyond the initiation of any debate of any escape clause ever known before in US History to allow total subjugation of all US citizens in any history that has in the past been acknowledged as American History.

Those two paragraphs are examples of totally bad and totally wrong presumptions to permit and further exploit, support, and promote the total disintegration of the entire legal US framework as any level of legal system that will then only allow further interpretations AND conceptualizations by anyone to justify any action they so desire based on any arbitrary "WHIM" in the future.

My words written by myself other than the cited quoted information, on 07222021.

"But far too many companies are still driven by short-term profits." So what's the problem? Just relax: Unethical capitalism will solve that problem too, because all of these "short-term profit driven companies" will all go bankrupt!

The legacies of slavery are codified in American law/jurisprudence:

"The 13th amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Slavery - as punishment - remains an exercise in legality in American contemporary life.

Are US corporations above the law?

As this case clearly shows, the answer is emphatically "no." The case was decided based on the law. The vote was 8-1.

The authors' real complaint is that they don't like the law. They throw this tantrum because they confuse the law with their own preferred policies. They are asking (you guessed it) that they should be above the law.

The authors also misleadingly claim that the court found that the "US Alien Tort Statute . . . cannot be applied 'extraterritorially,' because that would amount to an extension of US law beyond US boundaries."

That's false. The Court ruled as it did NOT because US law cannot be extended beyond US boundaries (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act anyone?). It has consistently said that a statute cannot be applied extraterritorially unless Congress gives "a clear, affirmative indication” that it so intended. That indication was absent from the Alien Tort Claims statute.

This point is important because Stiglitz & Heal might more productively have addressed their complaint to Congress which has the power to amend the law. Instead they use the opportunity to engage in tiresome ritualistic corporation-bashing and little homilies about corporate social responsibility.

Of course, Congress might want to think long and hard before agreeing to open the doors of the Supreme Court to international human rights claims from every corner of the globe that have only a tenuous nexus with the U.S.

Unfortunately, you cannot argue economics in a court of law. This is a problem of the whole concept behind the global economy. There is not an adequate legal structure to regulate it, and so wealthy countries effectively enslave poorer countries. While establishing international law might look like a solution, it is hard to imagine that it would not suffer the same fate; controlled by the wealthiest countries. The only answer, in my opinion, is to reshape the global economy using the lessons of evolution. It needs to be emergent. It needs to be anti-fragile, with supply chains that are fractal. Right now the supply chains are untethered from the web of human friendships; we get our shoes from nameless faces of a different color; and this makes the whole thing unstable and subject to abuse.

I am very surprised that the Supreme Court verdict was 8:1. It should have been unanimous. The US courts do not have jurisdiction over a Swiss company doing business in Africa. Apparently one of our Justices values emotion over the Law.

Joseph Stiglitz and Geoffrey Heal are to be applauded for writing this piece which is critical of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in relation to child slaves.

However, it is naive in the extreme to think that even if the Court had ruled in favor of the former child slaves, that anything meaningful would have been achieved in regard to the exploitation of children (or adults) in the world of global capitalism. Capitalism cannot survive without a source of cheap labor to exploit for profit.

Complaining about capitalists exploiting people for profit is somewhat akin to the proverbial brothel owner who is aghast to learn that the staff are having sex with the customers. It is simply what is meant to happen.

If Joe and Geoff really want to put a complete stop to the sort of ill-treatment and enslavement that they so justifiably criticize in this article, then they should be advocating the replacement of global capitalism with democratic socialism.

Yes, most definitely. I can think of no better example than the present campaign to enforce vaccinations using vaccines that are only experimental, do not have FDA approval, while politicized requirements are being used to force individuals to be vaccinated with all assumed and consequential risk to the individual citizen. The companies that are producing the vaccines have been given TOTAL legal exemption of any legal responsibility if an individual endures lasting effects that either kills the individual or insures that the individual has up to life-long negative effects and possible effects on any progeny in the future. Now with the sentences that I have used to give a brief explanation of the predicament that the individual citizen is being relegated to, it sure looks and sounds to me that US Corporations are most definitely above and actually dictate the laws of the land AGAINST the US citizen. Now if you want to write a good counter statement to what I have just written, I would love to read it. How can any legal system expect willing allegiance to a pharmaceutical approach to control that is totally negative under the present laws of the US? Lie/pretend/distort/disrupt/ as much as you want but the present situation is dire and most definitely bad. Can you really fool everybody except the top 1% all of the time? Sure looks to me like that is exactly what the present game plan is attempting to suggest. Presently not even the CDC online reports can be considered to have any integrity or medical relevance based on the DC10 codes either. Now, if the CDC data were accurate, and if the Federal government established medical insurance options for individual citizens that suffer negative effects from the experimental vaccinations there would be some pushback within the quasi-legal and political maneuvering that is presently occurring. It would not however change that this is NOT a public health program at all. It would not change that the process is not rooted in any legal framework other than FORCING individuals outside of constitutional laws.

There are a number of real serious issues that need to be resolved legally because of this Supreme Court Decision. Corporate Entities have been granted personhood legally in the US. Present legal statutes do NOT also require any level of RESPONSIBILITY that can be equated within the laws that are applicable to a real human being as a person.
This decision by the Supreme Court has turned the "legal definitions" immediately back to Congress.

The further questions that need to be probed are the "1619 Project" political distortions. The Library of Congress video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg6x4f5-yUs presents a more valid perspective with historical context. However, even the Library of Congress video is a narrow focus within the historical perspective of "slavery" as used for identifying labor and control of other human beings. Therefore, I am posting this excerpt from Wikipedia to present the other side of the story, which is the fact of indentured servitude of the "WHITE" and "EUROPEANS" laborers.

"Between one-half and two-thirds of European immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and American Revolution came under indentures.[2] However, while almost half the European immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies were indentured servants, at any one time they were outnumbered by workers who had never been indentured, or whose indenture had expired, and thus free wage labor was the more prevalent for Europeans in the colonies.[3] Indentured people were numerically important mostly in the region from Virginia north to New Jersey. Other colonies saw far fewer of them. The total number of European immigrants to all 13 colonies before 1775 was about 500,000; of these 55,000 were involuntary prisoners. Of the 450,000 or so European arrivals who came voluntarily, Tomlins estimates that 48% were indentured.[4] About 75% of these were under the age of 25. The age of adulthood for men was 24 years (not 21); those over 24 generally came on contracts lasting about 3 years.[5] Regarding the children who came, Gary Nash reports that "many of the servants were actually nephews, nieces, cousins and children of friends of emigrating Englishmen, who paid their passage in return for their labor once in America."[6]"

1619 was NOT the founding of America. The history book narrative was never a story of lies. The historical information in most textbooks was a simplified and basic version of minimal and only most generalized basic facts. The psychological overtones that are presently being used to only present Africans and Indians as the oppressed LABORERS is just a further narrative of reactive fantasy. Presently, distortion is just swinging to different scales, depending on who has the blindfold over their eyes and is holding the scales.

The British did not start enslavement. The Slave trade is rooted in African and Islamic culture. However, enslavement is rooted across all races. All people in the 1600's were enduring extreme difficulties at that time to travel and attempt to survive. The problems of power and class hierarchies are endemic within all societies of Humankind.

The slave trade did not start with the British stealing, conquering, and settling North America. The Indians were just as violent and slaveholders within and against other tribes. African tribes enslaved other Africans etc. Emotionalism is being used to sell a politicized messaging of narratives that are really rooted in destroying any unity and social cohesiveness to destroy the United States as a functional state.

The healing process by using narrative is needed. However, people cannot be blinded by emotional ploys with hidden and subversive intent. Wallowing in self pity only establishes more vulnerability for all citizens. It is extremely difficult to balance the focus of any narratives as to the individual predicament and the state's predicament.

It is most important to recognize that the SOCIAL CONTRACT as written and signed for the US Constitution, specifically was written for future "persons". It was not perfect. However, it is the only contract that was written to use the conceptual awareness of a "PERSON" in a legal document. It is important to recognize that the Caucasian race/tribes are the minority and have been fleeing for their lives for many centuries from the power conflicts enslaving them historically. If not, the only outcome will be racial conflict for at least the next two generations if not longer. The real root legal conflict is the equality of the female, respect of the female body, under the law, and within any interpretations of spiritual consciousness or religious law.

There are more people living lives today in indentured servitude and actual slavery than in the past. The majority of citizens all races are essentially today living in indentured servitude with no real opportunity of real freedom. Most of us are living within varying illusions and delusions as to their real individual state, which is NOT free.

The new labor trend is again trending to enslavement to further expansion and scale.
The US is a bankrupt nation ripe for opportunists, and the opportunists have been diving, jumping and playing to higher and higher AND wrong scales.

Since globalization accelerated in the 80´s, large corporations benefited from low cost labor & industrial costs from poorer countries, where production is not obliged to implement labor, safety or environmental Western standards. This globalization model besides stimulating unfair competition against local national corporations who are obliged to follow Western standards, also increased the inequality in Western societies by voiding the middle class income. The question/exclamation mark here is, how is it possible that in the 21st century, Western greed overlaps the principles and values of Western culture?!

The statement at the start that "Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, argued that the pursuit of private interests – profits – will invariably promote the common good" is an overstatement. As far as I remember, even in The Wealth of Nations he did not claim that private interests "invariably" promote the common good. For example, he mentions that monoply and collusion are harmful.

Capitalism is built into the United States structure of government. Money is accorded First Amendment protection as free speech under the law.

Nestle is a Swiss Company... Maybe this should have been handled in a different court. Or how about handling this with the UN? Just two suggestions... You cannot blame the US and Capitalism for all the world's problems. Maybe focus on Globalization, corrupt governments and the world sucking up to China who by the way uses slave labor to make their products for export. International Corporations cannot be held accountable...