One vote in Seattle, part 3.

Candidate #14: Winston Wilkes. Propertarianist Party.

Overall impression: First, I had to look up his political party because I haven’t heard of it before.

Propertarianism, or proprietarianism, is a political philosophy that reduces all questions of ethics to the right to own property.[1] On property rights, it advocates private property based on Lockean sticky property norms, where an owner keeps his property more or less until he consents to gift or sell it, rejecting the Lockean proviso.

Closely related to and overlapping with right-libertarianism, it is also often accompanied with the idea that state monopoly law should be replaced by market-generated law centered on contractual relationships. Propertarian ideals are most commonly cited to advocate for an anarcho-capitalist or minarchist society with governance systems limited to enforcing contracts and private property.

According to its advocates, propertarianism is synonymous with capitalism.[2]

Things that stand out: Running at 26 years takes a lot of balls. Doesn’t want to make politics a career, which I also agree with. This country needs more voices in government. “I do not have any elected political experience because I do not intend to make politics my career.” Dude, you didn’t need that first half. Don’t point out your lack of experience in the first sentence. That’s like saying on your online dating profile: ‘I’ve never dated before, because I don’t want to get married.’ Don’t scare away potentially interested people before they even get to know you! “My profession is hard work and dedication.” And it begins… Ah, I too remember being 26 hunting for jobs after college without much work experience. The candidate statement is like a combination resume and cover letter. Play up your strengths and things you offer.

No new taxes. Third party audits on all taxes to find waste or misuse. Better health care for all. Equality of opportunity for all. Term limits. All these policies I am in favor of, but they are just talking points” I’m confused. Do you support these things you listed, or are they talking points? The only I disagree with is taxes. We do need more taxes in this state, but not taxes through sales taxes because they aren’t fair. We badly need an income tax in this state. It’s embarrassing that multiple billionaires live here, and Bezos is the richest man in the world. Meanwhile that tax money could solve the homeless issue.

I am twenty-six years old but even I know corruption runs the government. We expect politicians to lie and cheat. We also expect them to make millions of dollars through corrupt means while in office, and we just accept it.” We don’t expect politicians to lie and cheat. I don’t know about anyone else, but I despise it when they do. I feel the same about expecting politicians to make millions on the side.

“That is why I am running for office without accepting donations to my campaign and refusing any partnerships or sponsors. I am doing this so you know that I’m here to serve you, not to gain money or power.” Dude, how are people going to know you? Bernie Sanders could do this because he has decades of experience, and is a popular political figure. Sadly you need money to run for office and win in this country.

“Holding government accountable is something no one in politics will do and I am sick of it. Together with the people we will implement new bills to punish corruption and enact Title 18 Section 241 and 242 of the United States Code to remove the rot in government.” I’m not familiar with this legal thing. Also called “18 U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights”. I am not a lawyer. So here is what the US Justice Department has to say:

“Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.”

I’m not a lawyer, or IANAL (Lol). This seems like it would be hard to prove in court. You would have to prove intent. I’m interested to see if any readers that are lawyers could explain this in layman’s terms.

So I feel he is flawed and ambitious like any 26 year old human is, but he completely lost me with this “Epstein didn’t kill himself.” Sigh, another conspiracy theorist. Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory. Jeffrey Epstein was caught red handed and took his own life. He didn’t want to pay for his heinous crimes.

One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s