You seem to be using an idiosyncratic definition of either "liberty" or "criminal," because this seems to be tautological by the normal definitions. Something being criminal means your liberty to indulge in that thing has been taken away. So you could say this about any behavior — if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and if it's a crime, you are not at liberty to do it.
I perceive it elsewise. If someone abuses their liberty to commit fraud or violence, then they're a criminal. Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way.
Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's if they have an interest in regulating some form of human behavior or interaction.
No, criminals, by definition, commit crimes -- violations of criminal law.
> Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's
Nothing is criminal except in regard to a particular code of law. That's what "criminal" means.
Criminal neither implies, nor is implied by, "morally wrong".
This is only true if one takes the State's part in these discussions. The State can claim that certain forms of agriculture are illegal but that doesn't magically make those forms of agriculture criminal endeavors in anyone's eyes but those with an interest in the State's narrative.
No, the definition of what "criminals" means is independent of the value judgement of the correctness of the state's laws.
Do you have proof which is not from a State-backed agency on this assertion?