ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Not really, what you are talking about here is something completely different, a company becoming liable because of the actions of an employee. For your analogy to work, every single person working for the company would become personally liable if one employee did something wrong. That is clearly not how it works.
I disagree.
Every single member of the SS was not personally held liable for the actions of the whole. Instead, they suffered through the loss of benefits. Similarly when a company that offers profit sharing as a company benefit for working there has to either lower it's quarterly/yearly payout or eliminate it altogether due to being held liable for the actions of an employee, then the corporation is being collectively held responsible.
What is your source for the claim that no Waffen SS soldier is recieving military benefits today?
Well you've changed what I wrote, which seems convenient, but let's assume for a moment this was unintentional. Let's just deal with the specifics of your question and look to this source as one:
"Controversy raged during the 1950s and 1960s as Waffen-SS veteran groups fought high-profile legal battles in the newly founded West Germany to overturn the Nuremberg ruling, and win pension rights for their members. The judgement of Nuremberg could not be overturned, but in the ensuing refighting of history, many of the former enemies of the Waffen-SS appeared to question the old black-and-white assessment of Hitler's élite troops."
http://www.germanwarmachine.com/waffens ... uction.htm
Whatever. If you fail to see the racist stereotyping in a post where someone says that all Japanese were murderous savages...who also smelled bad, then Im afraid I cant help you.
Agreed, you can't help. If someone said the same things about members of the SS, there would be no claims to racism. Mention it about a group consisting of non-europeans and suddenly it's racism. [8|]
You really need to drop this line of reasoning because you are barking up the wrong tree. Corporate liability when an employer does something bad is based on the notion that the employer is a representative of the company, and therefore his actions can cause the company to become liable for something. Here, the company becomes liable because the employee was acting on their behalf. Now, since the company is a separate legal entity, and since the employee is doing something as a representative of the company, the company can become liable.
Sounds like some of the reasoning used for the collective guilt of the SS, SA, and other groups.
Collective guilt would require the employee doing something so every single employee became liable. And...as you might suspect...that doesnt happen. Why, I hear you ask? Because there is no such thing as collective guilt in our legal or moral tradition here in the western civilization.
Since when is christianity not a part of the moral tradition in western civilization and with it the moral argument of original sin and the 'sins of the father being put on the children'?
