Formal proposal to rename the Pirate Party by 2018

[tjc (Tim Challis)]

So the name should be as reasonably:

1. Unique; and
2. Non-mockable

as is possible to make it?

[piecritic (Brendan Molloy)]

as that term is generally understood at this point in time

Not convinced that there actually is a general understanding of this word based on my interactions with people over the last several years. Responses vary from “never heard of that” to “I like freedom” to “there once were crazy right-wingers, run away!”.

It’s not so cut and dried, hence my proposal in the first place.

Equity captures one aspect - and it isn’t equality. Equity and equality are not the same.

That’s what makes this proposal a fairly difficult name. Also, we’re not a bank trying to sell a mortgage.

Let’s face it, most of what we want said won’t be said in the name.

Pretty sure Libertarian Left covers off our entire platform.

[davidb (David Boxall)]

Pretty sure Libertarian Left covers off our entire platform.

It’s what it says beyond the platform that’s the problem.

While we’re at it, I’ve been looking for a term to convey the freedom aspect. Haven’t found anything that doesn’t smell too much like “Tea Party”.

[piecritic (Brendan Molloy)]

It’s what it says beyond the platform that’s the problem.

Please enumerate what you believe the proposed name “says beyond the platform” so we can better understand your position.

In other news, an article about a new forming party called the ‘Wellbeing Party’ has a quip about us in it:

The electoral commission’s register of political parties lists the Pirate Party Australia and while it appears to be a force for pirate shirts as worn by Jerry Seinfeld in the sitcom, it is a movement against “draconian copyright and patent laws” and protecting civil and digital liberties against piracy.

[davidb (David Boxall)]

…
Please enumerate …

First, you were warned:

…
I also have a specific argument against any name with the word “libertarian” in it. It’s become too toxic. I know exactly what it’s meant to mean, but it’s going to scare people off.

Then, you showed that you already knew:

… my interactions with people over the last several years. Responses vary … to “there once were crazy right-wingers, run away!”.
…

What impact on your case do you anticipate from your trolling?

Returning to honest discussion:
If the only option on offer is the one upon which you seem fixated, then I won’t vote for change. If the Party is renamed as you wish, then I believe we will lose members. It’s highly probable that the name will attract members that you won’t particularly want.

You’ve rejected all reference to common usage, clinging instead to narrow dictionary definitions. We’re the Pirate Party; how often do you rob ships at sea? Are the Liberals really liberal?

Tarnatiger Copter put it well:

…
No Party in Australia with the possible exception of the Greens accurately reflects the reasoning for the name it was given and still uses. Labor Liberals and Nationals as they now stand bear little or no relation to what motivated people to found them and name them.
…
The question then is, is having name that, even if it accurately describes who we are now, really that important?

Could we find an alternative that is attractive but less descriptive?
…

If the Party really needs a new name, then it doesn’t need to reflect our policies or position. In fact, we’d be more nimble and flexible if it doesn’t.

[piecritic (Brendan Molloy)]

Going to ignore the goading and get to the crux.

If the Party really needs a new name, then it doesn’t need to reflect our policies or position. In fact, we’d be more nimble and flexible if it doesn’t.

The only “restriction” that left-libertarianism imposes is no authoritarianism and no right-wing nonsense. It can’t get more nimble or flexible insofar as meeting the requirements of the party’s current culture and ensuring it isn’t restricted in the future without evolving into something it should never be.

I don’t care if—regardless of what the name changes to—we lose members. If they’re in it exclusively for the name, they’re in it definitely for the wrong reasons. I’ve spent the best part of 8 years on this party, so I’m not some nobody nom de plume trying to assert a point for no purpose than to gain attention. I want the party to grow going forward and it has largely stagnated in its current form. I will continue to argue for my proposal otherwise there would have been no reason to propose it in the first place.

Go read over @Frew’s post and see someone else who has spent just as many years on this organisation making the point about why the change is necessary.

You’ve rejected all reference to common usage, clinging instead to narrow dictionary definitions. We’re the Pirate Party; how often do you rob ships at sea? Are the Liberals really liberal?

Are Left Libertarians really right-wing?

Also because I just can’t let this go: the Liberals are liberal in the sense they named themselves; see economic liberalism.

[Mozart (Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer)]

It’s also worth mentioning, I think, that libertarian doesn’t actually have an established connotation in Australian politics. All the more reason for a truly left-libertarian party to grab hold of it.

The negative connotations attached to it do not seem to apply outside those familiar with American politics. Every example of ‘bad’ libertarianism raised comes the United States.

I am confident that the negative connotations of ‘libertarian’ would be tempered by the word ‘left’, and that anyone with a knowledge of libertarianism would know what left-libertarian means.

[Mozart (Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer)]

Equity captures one aspect - and it isn’t equality. Equity and equality are not the same.

Of course they are not the same, but ‘social equality’ is the constitutional principle to which ‘equity’ best relates.

If we can’t find acceptable terms for other aspects, then we might just have to live with not covering them in the name. Let’s face it, most of what we want said won’t be said in the name.

It would seem quite a bad decision to cover less than half of what the party stands for. ‘Libertarian’ would be far better than ‘equity’ if we took that route: we are, after all, a civil liberties party. It is the completeness of ‘left-libertarian’ (or other arrangement of those words) that makes it so attractive.

I think if we are to move away from Pirate Party, it should be towards a name with a similar completeness as what has been proposed.

[tserong (Tim Serong)]

The negative connotations attached to it do not seem to apply outside those familiar with American politics. Every example of ‘bad’ libertarianism raised comes the United States.

OK, but we do actually get news of US politics over here Those bad examples are going to stick with people.

Incidentally, there appears to be a Libertarian Party of Australia, although AFAICT it’s never been registered with the AEC (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_Australia and http://libertarian.net.au/)

[Mozart (Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer)]

OK, but we do actually get news of US politics over here Those bad examples are going to stick with people.

Incidentally, there appears to be a Libertarian Party of Australia, although AFAICT it’s never been registered with the AEC (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_Australia and http://libertarian.net.au/)

Neither the American or Australian libertarian parties have ever achieved enough momentum to get significant local attention.

[Mozart (Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer)]

And by ‘significant’, I mean ‘more than us’.

[tserong (Tim Serong)]

Neither the American or Australian libertarian parties have ever achieved enough momentum to get significant local attention.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant by getting news of US politics over here was that every time some gun nut, climate change denier, Ayn Rand disciple, selfish bastard or other crazy who happens to identify as libertarian pops up doing something nutty, we hear about it, and it taints the term.

I know qualifying it with “left” makes that go away if you take the time to think about it, but the base term is still overloaded with ugly cruft. It’s a shame when that happens to an otherwise useful word…

[Mozart (Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer)]

What I meant by getting news of US politics over here was that every time some gun nut, climate change denier, Ayn Rand disciple, selfish bastard or other crazy who happens to identify as libertarian pops up doing something nutty, we hear about it, and it taints the term.

Which is rare. ‘Libertarian’ is not as loaded as people think. There would seem to be a good opportunity to reclaim ‘libertarian’ (although, as I’ve indicated, it would be more of a claim).

[davidb (David Boxall)]

…
I don’t care if—regardless of what the name changes to—we lose members. If they’re in it exclusively for the name, …

Perhaps not the name, but the connotations of the name.

Are Left Libertarians really right-wing?

If Libertarianism doesn’t have right-wing associations, would you need the modifier?

It’s also worth mentioning, I think, that libertarian doesn’t actually have an established connotation in Australian politics. …

I raised the question of Libertarianism with a group of acquaintances. A couple of farmers, a retired coal miner and some in metal trades; not inner-city sophisticates. The name that came up repeatedly was David Leyonhjelm. For those not familiar with the senator from NSW, his record can be summed up:
guns good;
wind farms bad.
Sadly, for those who might want to believe otherwise, the electorate is quite familiar with the connotations of Libertarianism in Australia at this point in time.

…
The negative connotations attached to it do not seem to apply outside those familiar with American politics. Every example of ‘bad’ libertarianism raised comes the United States.

I fear you’re suffering Confirmation Bias; subconsciously turning a blind eye to that which doesn’t support your case.

I am confident that the negative connotations of ‘libertarian’ would be tempered by the word ‘left’, …

Doesn’t the mere fact that you need to temper the term trigger any alarms?

…
It would seem quite a bad decision to cover less than half of what the party stands for. …

You haven’t established that any new name needs to cover any part of that. Do we need a description or a brand?

In Pirate Party, we have an established brand. Moving away from that will be costly in many ways.

If you see the party as one of extreme individualism and small government, then your chosen name is appropriate. Potential confusion with the Libertarian Party will probably be no concern.

[piecritic (Brendan Molloy)]

Perhaps not the name, but the connotations of the name.

Which are?

If Libertarianism doesn’t have right-wing associations, would you need the modifier?

It’s a spectrum. Adding left makes it clear where upon said spectrum we fit, and serves to make the name more memorable and descriptive, limiting the requirement to spell everything out manually every time we say our name.

You haven’t established that any new name needs to cover any part of that. Do we need a description or a brand?

Both, hence my proposal.

In Pirate Party, we have an established brand. Moving away from that will be costly in many ways.

[citation needed]

0.5% in 2013 and barely any press coverage since doesn’t scream established brand btw.

If you see the party as one of extreme individualism and small government, then your chosen name is appropriate.

[several citations needed]

---

As an aside: please stop replying in short soliloquies. If you want to have soliloquies about the proposal, you are welcome to reply in a linked thread.

[piecritic (Brendan Molloy)]

I give this one a reply of its own.

I raised the question of Libertarianism with a group of acquaintances. A couple of farmers, a retired coal miner and some in metal trades; not inner-city sophisticates. The name that came up repeatedly was David Leyonhjelm. For those not familiar with the senator from NSW, his record can be summed up:
guns good;
wind farms bad.
Sadly, for those who might want to believe otherwise, the electorate is quite familiar with the connotations of Libertarianism in Australia at this point in time.

Inner-city sophisticates: if this is meant to be a slur, it’s quite a funny one.

Is your entire argument based around “there was once a guy who called himself a libertarian” (who, by the way, even fails to meet the right wing definition of the word) and therefore the word is ruined forever because nobody could ever as a group correct the record? Again, we regularly are called a civil libertarian party. The use of libertarian is not something we’ve shied away from before, and people do understand that in different contexts words have different meaning. Us entering the landscape under that name by default shifts the context.

This is how language works.

[tserong (Tim Serong)]

Which are?

Perhaps this might help.

In Pirate Party, we have an established brand. Moving away from that will be costly in many ways.

[citation needed]

Now you’re just being deliberately difficult. This whole thing is speculative. What’s there to cite, on either side of the argument?

0.5% in 2013 and barely any press coverage since doesn’t scream established brand btw.

And yet the original post suggested there was strong brand recognition:

The Pirate brand will be spun-off as an NGO where the core features of the original Pirate movement will be able to flourish more freely than within the political infrastructure. We were always in practice a lobbying organ, and as a separate NGO with strong brand recognition, this will continue with fewer restraints.

Anyway, IMO this is going nowhere, really. ISTM some of us don’t like having Libertarian in the name and some do, and neither camp seems likely to convince the other to switch sides any time soon

[piecritic (Brendan Molloy)]

Which are?

Perhaps this might help.

You just quoted a purely American reference. It literally refers to the American Republican party.

And yet the original post suggested there was strong brand recognition:

piecritic:
The Pirate brand will be spun-off as an NGO where the core features of the original Pirate movement will be able to flourish more freely than within the political infrastructure. We were always in practice a lobbying organ, and as a separate NGO with strong brand recognition, this will continue with fewer restraints.

I am arguing that it will have strong brand recognition as an NGO. The lobbying space is completely different to the party political space. This suggestion is based on my experience representing this organisation over the last several years in both capacities.

For those unfamiliar with my history:

• Secretary for several years
• Registered the party with the AEC
• President and Councillor once each
• Represented Party at several lobbying events such as Australian Digital Alliance and Internet Governance Forum events, ACTA and TPP ‘public consultations’, as the NSW Senate candidate in 2013.

I have had the “honour” of hearing the responses to our name and branding from people with power (and less power) in many different contexts. You haven’t had the Chief Regulatory Officer of iiNet rudely laugh in your face for talking about your political party before.

Anyway, I will update the phrasing to make my intent more clear.

Now you’re just being deliberately difficult. This whole thing is speculative. What’s there to cite, on either side of the argument?

I am not being difficult. Difficult is shitposting in a thread with off the cuff remarks of opinion without being bothered to defend those opinions.

This is fundamentally a discussion of philosophy and branding. You can cite your own argumentation for why you think you are correct. An assertion is not an argument.

I’d like people to truly attempt to make an argument or shitpost about me on Facebook. Pick one, not both.

Anyway, IMO this is going nowhere, really. ISTM some of us don’t like having Libertarian in the name and some do, and neither camp seems likely to convince the other to switch sides any time soon

I’m here to have a proper discussion on the merits and consequences. You seem not to be actually debating my proposal. I put a lot of effort into detailing the reasons why I think it’s a good name and why I believe we need to rename.

You’ve also decided that there are “camps”—to make this “us” and “them”—good for you. You’ve chosen to approach this as a tribal issue, which says more about your debating technique and mentality than it does mine.

I’m genuinely flabbergasted with the approach you and @davidb have decided to take with this debate, considering the amount of substance I have put into my discussion. You do not seem to be approaching it with the same good faith that I have and will continue to maintain.

If you wish to actually make an argument in the future, I will happy to consider it, but no more single sentence assertions, because at least I have enough respect for the party and its members to argue my points in detail.

[piecritic (Brendan Molloy)]

I have updated my post to detail this question more:

Q: Aren’t both the terms Libertarian and Left tainted to the point of no return?

Yes. So are the words: ‘green’, ‘freedom’, ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, ‘market’, ‘common-sense’, and even ‘pirate’. During the 2013 election, some feminists came out against our party because the German Pirates had said something sexist a year prior. There is no spoon, we cannot objectively win with any given name, but it a matter of how much you can gain. We can gain a lot more from this name than we would lose, particularly opposed to using another name like “Freedom Party” or “Science and Tech Party”. They either bring up different imagery than intended, or are limiting in their depth, much like Pirate has been in practice.

However, I do believe that tainted or otherwise, this name is the strongest name we could use.

One of the major problems with Pirate as a party political name is it demonstrably does not have mass appeal in Australia, something which is important for electability, which should be our primary aim. Libertarian Left is not only self-describing as a brand, it is a strong unifier for the lower left quadrant of politics where we lie, and should draw attention to those people who have similar political leanings but either never knew we existed or thought putting effort into an unelectable organisation to not be worth it. It would be folly to underestimate the power of a name that clearly says “Not Labor, not Liberal, not the Greens and not the LDP.”

However, some have argued that it is possible that this name could draw comparisons with the Liberal Democrat Party due to the introduction of Libertarian to the name. There is no evidence that the name Libertarian has been tainted to the degree that words like “Freedom” have been, nor that it lacks the mass appeal necessary to get a quota of votes to be elected at any level of politics. Most recently, the “Freedom and Prosperity Party” was deregistered; they were formerly known as the “No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party”. Not the kind of bed-fellows you really want to associate with.

There are of course risks from those self-selected ‘libertarians’ such as Leyonhjelm, who fails to meet even the most broad definition of libertarian, as he strongly opposes science which is necessary for growth under a right-libertarian economic model (largely the only model the right-libertarians care about). However, the Pirate Party where possible has been sanitising the name for many years, often being referred to as a civil libertarian party in the media and by those I’ve spoken to. Other groups such as the EFA have been referred to as civil libertarian for years as well. Any time you talk about human and digital rights, you will be branded a civil libertarian.

This demonstrates that Libertarian Left—or a variant of those two words—makes it very clear in context where we stand, and what we intend to do, and it doesn’t take a genius or a spinster to explain to the common person what it means and how it differs to any other variant of libertarian or left that you can imagine.

To tackle the final argument that this name may deter voters: anything can deter voters, but I believe this rename would not deter any voter who would have voted Pirate in the first place based on a reading of our policy set and not for the amusement or cultural factor (of which 0.5% isn’t strongly demonstrative of), and would not deter any voter who would never have voted Pirate in the first place due to either name or policy.

I believe, as I asserted above in my argumentation, that the name will only broaden our appeal as it claims an entire quadrant of the political spectrum which has been neglected for centuries and deserves strong representation.

[tserong (Tim Serong)]

Oh, Brendan… You’re intelligent, passionate, and clearly have the best interests of the party at heart. But suggesting I’m not arguing in good faith, questioning my debating technique and mentality, suggesting I lack respect for the party and its members, and accusing me of shitposting…?

Yes, my link to Libertarianism on urban dictionary was largely a reference to American usage of the term. But as we are influenced in Australia by American culture, it’s still a valid point.

You’ve also decided that there are “camps”—to make this “us” and “them”—good for you. You’ve chosen to approach this as a tribal issue, which says more about your debating technique and mentality than it does mine.

I’m not approaching this as a tribal issue, it was simply an observation about where the debate seems to have wound up.

This is fundamentally a discussion of philosophy and branding. You can cite your own argumentation for why you think you are correct. An assertion is not an argument.

I don’t thing I’m correct in any objective sense. I think this entire debate is fundamentally subjective and speculative.

You, Frew, and others have made a good case for why renaming the party makes sense if we want to increase electability and potential mass appeal.

I did put forth arguments in favour of the Pirate name earlier, but noted then that if we want mass appeal, the mass appeal argument probably trumps all of those.

Libertarian Left or Left Libertarian is a good description of where our policies lie on the political spectrum.

But I, personally, don’t like the name. And I am speculating that it will be a turn-off for some unknown number of voters, because of the baggage that I believe the word libertarian has attached to it, and also because it’s “just another political party name”, same as all the others. I’m also speculating that it will be opposed by some unknown number of our membership, for the same reasons.

Maybe I’m wrong and it will be a turn-off for nobody. Maybe I’m a bit right, but it will only be a turn-off for, like, half a dozen people, and won’t actually matter at all. Maybe I’m very right, and it will be a disaster. I just don’t know, and I don’t think anybody else does either.

BTW, thank you for updating the original post to cover the question of taint in more detail, that’s a very well presented argument.