“No government of the Centre would seek powers to imprison individuals who have committed no crime merely on the say-so of "experts" who believe they might commit a crime. No libertarian government would want to reduce our right to trial by jury, to curfew children, to place "anti-social behaviour orders" on citizens, to conduct compulsory DNA and drug tests on all offenders. No government that was concerned with freedom would seek to ban pursuits that harm no one, such as foxhunting, simply because they are unpopular. No government that has respect for its citizens would seek to interfere so intimately with so many of their private activities -- for instance, what right does a government have to tell me under what terms and conditions I may sell my house. The transaction should, quite simply, be none of their business.”

In status of an individual sovereign, expanding his lawful expression, a term (based on language limitations) government would define lawful activities. In such government of, by, and for 'We The People', the government is an integral extension of the individual sovereign and could do nothing the individual sovereign could not lawfully do himself. Only in the case, when a government is in toto aloof from 'We The People', i.e., a foreign despot, an alien organic hegemony, could that government imprison individuals who have committed no harm - a lawful crime (even by the rantings of a kangaroo court or even having no charges leveled at the individual at all), or acted in his most basic inalienable rights, would man unlawfully and unjustly be made a helot, serf, and slave.

I think that George Thomas has it right. It's good to see that not everyone in England has gone crazy.

The term “crime” is an arbitrary and ambiguous concept when used to define illegal infractions. “Crime” is most often used in the legal setting of “legal positivism” - outside “nature’s law”. By example: “A crime is an offense against a public law.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) The law of nature’s use of the term / concept “crime”, seldom describes a nature’s law infraction (by example: the extremely few biblical uses are by way of a translator’s interpretation - other conceptual phrases would work better). A crime against nature or its law(s) would eliminate any / all of carnal man’s rationalization and creations of compelled compliance, victimless illegalities, government licenses, larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, Social Security, police state confiscations, etc.) and/or lack of individual sovereign’s inalienable rights or liberty realization. Crimes against humanity, such as the Nuremberg Code that prohibits forced injections of experimental products into ones body, absolutely rejects the “legal positivism’s” miss-nomenclature practice of vaccines and the moral crimes falsely associated therewith.

Suspension of Habeas Corpus, forcing anti-social behavior on children (CRT, collectivism vs individual sovereignty, etc. by example), obligated volition or otherwise forced RNA modification, imposed religious dogma such as a collective phantasm is greater than the individual sovereign — adding alternate terminology to the quote, all demonstrate crimes against humanity.

I guess this means most of the world's governments are not nearly in the center...  The US, Canada, Australia, France, lead the way in authoritarian power grabs using the pandemic as a pretext while doing everything they can to dis-empower any citizen who expresses dissent.  Freedom hangs by a thread as the Great Reset aims to re-write the rules of society worldwide.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...