Why it's difficult to trace root cause - the Dharma conundrum today

Sivaji Ganesan presenting his case in court;
 Parasakti - courtesy gokul-r.blogspot.com

'Root Cause' is a phrase you hear a lot in international relations these days, especially as it relates to terrorism. Essentially, a terrorist can blame the victim (of some unjust thing in the past) for his aggression, and in most causes there is a cycle or chain of events (each worthy of blames and counter blames) that leads up to the act(s) in the present day.

I have been thinking a lot lately about how one might deal with root case analysis, and where one might draw the line in determining what might be right or wrong. And.. most importantly, what is rightful revenge?

In yugas past (krita, treta and dwapara) the responsibility of dharma was vested in units larger than the self. For example, in the dwapara yuga, the family was the unit that was collectively responsible for upholding Dharma. So, if Duryodhana did a wrong, Bhishma should not have stood silent. If a kshatriya decides to stop participating in protecting his people (and perhaps - in today's scenario - succumbed to a lobbyist to award a defence contract to a substandard vendor) his family would do good to force him to mend his ways.

Now to the present day.

As a solid example of root cause analysis from recent times, the Post-Godhra Gujarat riots of 2003. Hindu Kar Sevaks were burned alive in an entire rail bogey. The Muslims (per prevailing understanding of the case) that committed this act of terrorism blamed the Babri demolition by 'Hindus'. It wasn't the same Hindus, but belonging to the same community was sufficient justification for this group to indulge in the act. The Babri demolition itself was more or less a desperate last resort after decades (and perhaps centuries) of frustration in the Hindu communities. Babar may have demolished the Ram temple in Ayodhya, but the Muslims of today are not in any way related to him, surely? Should the Muslims though disown the mosque as not rightfully having belonged to them, acknowledging the demolition of the temple in the 1600s?

As we can see, many questions can be raised regarding entire communities' responsibilities, without having any clear answer in the end.      

1. Rich and poor alike evade taxes. Whatever the tax code, someone is bound to be unhappy. Either the evader is being fraudulent, or is stretching the spirit of the law and the tax code to his benefit (example, Apple setting up a Nevada office). Here, the evader is going to rationalize their behaviour by accounting for their 'other' contributions to society, job creation perhaps. In this case, the evader's complaint may be that there is no other benefit to job creation, just whatever profits he is able to make. Society (the government or the people collectively) is unable to meet all the needs of the individual at a sufficient level of granularity (even in something like the tax code) thereby guaranteeing legal noncompliance. How does one determine what the 'right' level of tax is, anyway?
2. In the kali yuga, families continue to exist more or less as the institution they once were. However, the son or daughter does their own thing even if the parents object, not something one would be able to do in an earlier yuga (and still have a clear heart, because one is really breaking Dharma). That the mata and pita are to be respected comes with its caveats (arbitrarily assigned by the son or daughter) today. For example, if the father owed money to someone, not every son is going to feel the responsibility to repay. I bet that a good majority would want to shrug responsibility, citing one or more reasons that may actually seem reasonable. "My father has no assets, so no inheritance, no loan repayment" is an argument one can definitely make, and probably win in court as well. 
3. How about pre-marital physical contact? The Dharma for a man (or boy) is to not lust after any woman who isn't his wedded wife. Similarly, the Dharma for the girl is to gain approval from her parents and be wedded to the man first (as her first husband of course; Elizabeth Taylor and her 4 marriages aren't a great example of Dharma compliance here). "She was willing"/"I didn't make the first move", etc. are perfectly acceptable today (read the story of Ahilya and Indra on another post for reference and the repercussions both face for adultery). What relaxation, per our needs, of Dharma, leads to is a twisting of the first principles of Dharma and its institutions (marriage, family, etc) that make it difficult to track right and wrong.