The argument that one person cannot creates millions (in value) because he requires other poeple seems reasonable to an onlooker. We could argue that the one person is responsible because he is the engine - without him the others would not have been brought together - the same chain of events would not have taken place. Aha! but he would not be the way he was if society wasnt such and such, if his mum didnt do this and that.
A simple argument would be that Donovan Bailey doesnt 'deserve' his gold medal because his lineage developed the genetics, his trainers trained him and the society he grew up in developed sports, built racetracks etc etc.
Fine, but he was the one who ran fastest. All those enablers were there, many people had the same enablers - he ran fastest. the tycoon organised the best business, Clinton had the cheesiest false concern for the people.
Its readily accepted though - hell I could go take some money from Mr Business, after all im part of society so i deserve it right?
But when Mr Grief beats the man who raped and killed his daughter to death we dont want a part of it. We dont want to 'deserve' a part of the killers guilt, we find arguments about television, economic conditions and socialisation rather dubious suddenly, at least most of the public would.
Why? Self interest - it benefits us to claim a bit of someone elses effort and the society thing seems workable, but its of no benefit to accept part blame for a murderers act.
Except that some 'liberal justices' would find Mr Grief way out of line for cleaving in two the head of the killer - after all the killer must be deranged, alienated, its his mums fault, hell its all mums fault and TV and society too - the killer was bound to kill, you cant blame him! if anything Mr grief should go to kail....except - it cant be his fault either!
'Liberals' find the 'share the booty' side easier to sell, but try as they might they find that most people resist the 'share the guilt' side. Lets discuss!