For example, because some people cause car accidents and either lack the means to pay for the damages they cause or avoid paying for the damage they cause, other people who didn't cause any damages to anyone are hit with fines and even arrested if they fail to buy car insurance.

This principle is dangerous for reasons that ought to be obvious.

And now – inevitably – the precedent serves as the basis for applying the principle in other areas.

For instance, this school shooting that just happened in Georgia. The man who didn't do it – the father of the kid who did – has been charged with multiple counts of second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children.

Notwithstanding that he actually committed none of these crimes.

The fact is not in dispute. Nevertheless, Colin Gary – who is the father of the kid who shot up the school – has been charged as if he had shot up the school. This is a very strange – and unsettling – thing. It has not been alleged that the father knew the son planned to shoot up the school or aided him in any way; all that seems to matter is punishing someone for the crimes committed by the person who didn't commit them.

But why not just charge the person who actually did commit the crimes? Because that would limit who can be punished for these crimes. If the father of the kid who did the shooting but who had nothing to do with the shooting can be criminally charged for the shooting, then why not the store where the father bought the guns that were used to commit the crimes?

Why not the manufacturer of the guns?

It doesn't matter that neither bear any legitimate responsibility – since neither had anything to do with the criminal use of the guns. To allow that as the basis for charging people with a "crime" is the inevitable etiolation (disease process) of holding people responsible for harms they didn't cause because other people have – or might – cause them.