Does Canada "suck"

Let’s get clear on the definition of “sucks”, because it is a slang term and easy to misunderstand for non native English speakers.Sucks- "Is bad, is rubbish" http://www.internetslang.com...Bad is clearly a moral statement. If something is not good, it is bad. Canada Sucks. It is bad in the moral sense of the word. Most of my energy will be showing that Canada is immoral, but I will certainly also touch on the fact that it is a shittty place to live. My opponent is Canadian, so you can see the type of individual that comes from such a place, and it is despicable.CANADACanada is a political area. Given that Canada is a political boundary, it is safe to say that Canada is it’s government, though it certainly contains it’s citizens known as Canadians. It is important to keep in mind that Canada is a political boundary, that it is a government. Without the government there is no political boundary, and without the political boundary there is no government. They are one in the same.NAP is Love NAP is LifeNAP stands for non aggression principle. It is a principle most of us follow, and also expect others to follow. We intuitively know it is the ethical thing to do. Well what is the NAP? I’m glad you asked.The Nap is Murray Rothbard explains it the following way: “no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the ‘nonaggression axiom.’ ‘Aggression’ is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.”We as individuals recognize this to be true, but we somehow forget this truth when going to the ballot box. Perhaps having the government do our dirty work for us, makes us feel less responsible for the violence. If Canada helps America kill kids in the middle east, than we can blame politicians instead of accepting we have done something bad by voting for a person who would do such evil. Murray Rothbard in the following statement mentions other evil’s the Canadian government engages in.“The State habitually commits mass murder, which it calls ‘war,’ or sometimes ‘suppression of subversion’; the State engages in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls ‘conscription’; and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which it calls ‘taxation.'” https://kuyperiancommentary.wordpress.com...The state does all this stuff and more. Canada in emergency situations will call for conscription, and they undoubtedly tax their citizens as well as engage in wars, including the Iraq war, WW2 etc.. They also initiate force against speeders, people who pull their penis out in public and people who smoke crack.Let there be no doubt that the Canadian government violates the NAP on a daily basis, and is evil for it. (aka bad/sucks) We know the non aggression principle is a moral absolute. We don’t steal from people, because it is wrong. Even if I get 5 of my neighbors out and we all vote to steal your property it is wrong. That is what taxation is, your neigbors voting to steal your property. We know that it is wrong to tackle your neighbor if you see him doing a drug, and cuff him and then lock him in a 5 by 5 room. It doesn’t make this action okay just because you pay some money in the form of taxes to a hired gun in the form of a cop to do it for you. The non aggression principle is an undeniable moral truth, we inherently know it, society operates better when nobody is aggressing against others whether that be stealing from you or raping you. Canada sucks because it violates the NAP.The State is evilWe know the very existence of the state violates the NAP, and is therefore bad. However if you don’t accept the nap than you should know that the state is still bad for other reasons. In the best case scenario the state is unnecessary, in the worst case scenario it is just plain evil. There are 4 possibilities when looking at the distribution of good and evil people in society. Scenario 1- All men are good.If scenario 1 is true than a state is not necessary. Men can govern themselves instead of being governed by force.Scenario 2- All men are evil.Stefan Molyneux says: “In a society of pure evil, then, the only hope for stability would be a state of nature, where a general arming and fear of retribution would blunt the evil intents of disparate groups.” This makes sense in scenario number 2 giving evil men control of the state leaves them unrestrained from doing great harm.Scenario 3- The majority of men are evil, and a minority good.In this scenario a state cannot be allowed to exist because evil people will naturally gravitate towards positions of power, and god men being outnumbered at the ballot will help this process along as well. We can not allow an evil majority to hold the reigns of government an entity that has a monopoly on force. Scenario 4- Most men are good, and the minority evil.In this scenario evil people will pretend to be good and seek positions of power to shield themselves from good people. This puts a bunch of evil people in control of the state which has a monopoly on force and all the good people will be at their mercy.We can see in all scenarios a government cannot be allowed to exist, and since a government exists in Canada, Canada sucks. Here is what else Stephan says about these scenarios.“It is clear, then, that there is no situation under which a State can logically be allowed to exist. The only possible justification for the existence of a State would be if the majority of men are evil, but all the power of the State is always and forever controlled by a minority of good men. This situation, while interesting theoretically, breaks down logically because:1. the evil majority would quickly outvote the minority or overpower them through a coup;2. there is no way to ensure that only good people would always run the State; and,3. there is absolutely no example of this having ever occurred in any of the dark annals of the brutal history of the State. https://www.lewrockwell.com...Canada sucks because it has a government when all scenarios are examined it is stupid to have one. CONCLUSIONSucks is a slang word that means bad, a moral statement. We have now determined that Governments are inherently evil because their existence violates the non aggression principle as well as just being unnecessary even in the best of the 4 scenarios I mention. Canada as a political entity is bad/evil. Therefore it naturally follows that Canada sucks. Please vote Wylted.