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 itâs 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.
And by âsignificantâ, I mean âmore than usâ.
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 âleftâ makes that go away if you take the time to think about it, but the base term is still overloaded with ugly cruft. Itâs a shame when that happens to an otherwise useful wordâŚ
Which is rare. âLibertarianâ is not as loaded as people think. There would seem to be a good opportunity to reclaim âlibertarianâ (although, as Iâve indicated, it would be more of a claim).
Perhaps not the name, but the connotations of the name.
If Libertarianism doesnât have right-wing associations, would you need the modifier?
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.
I fear youâre suffering Confirmation Bias; subconsciously turning a blind eye to that which doesnât support your case.
Doesnât the mere fact that you need to temper the term trigger any alarms?
You havenât 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.
Which are?
Itâs 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.
Both, hence my proposal.
[citation needed]
0.5% in 2013 and barely any press coverage since doesnât scream established brand btw.
[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.
I give this one a reply of its own.
Inner-city sophisticates: if this is meant to be a slur, itâs quite a funny one.
Is your entire argument based around âthere was once a guy who called himself a libertarianâ (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 weâve 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.
Perhaps this might help.
Now youâre just being deliberately difficult. This whole thing is speculative. Whatâs there to cite, on either side of the argument?
And yet the original post suggested there was strong brand recognition:
Anyway, IMO this is going nowhere, really. ISTM some of us donât like having Libertarian in the name and some do, and neither camp seems likely to convince the other to switch sides any time soon
You just quoted a purely American reference. It literally refers to the American Republican party.
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:
I have had the âhonourâ of hearing the responses to our name and branding from people with power (and less power) in many different contexts. You havenât 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.
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.
Iâd like people to truly attempt to make an argument or shitpost about me on Facebook. Pick one, not both.
Iâm 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 itâs a good name and why I believe we need to rename.
Youâve also decided that there are âcampsââto make this âusâ and âthemââgood for you. Youâve chosen to approach this as a tribal issue, which says more about your debating technique and mentality than it does mine.
Iâm 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.
I have updated my post to detail this question more:
Oh, Brendan⌠Youâre intelligent, passionate, and clearly have the best interests of the party at heart. But suggesting Iâm 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 shitpostingâŚ?
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, itâs still a valid point.
Iâm not approaching this as a tribal issue, it was simply an observation about where the debate seems to have wound up.
I donât thing Iâm 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, donât 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 itâs âjust another political party nameâ, same as all the others. Iâm also speculating that it will be opposed by some unknown number of our membership, for the same reasons.
Maybe Iâm wrong and it will be a turn-off for nobody. Maybe Iâm a bit right, but it will only be a turn-off for, like, half a dozen people, and wonât actually matter at all. Maybe Iâm very right, and it will be a disaster. I just donât know, and I donât think anybody else does either.
BTW, thank you for updating the original post to cover the question of taint in more detail, thatâs a very well presented argument.
What a peculiar interpretation! You repeatedly assert that the term âLibertarianâ is largely unknown in the Australian electorate and that negative connotations are mostly American. I give an example to the contrary and you respond like that!
Any rational reader will understand that my comment referred to average Australian voters. The electorate at large, not any particularly sophisticated or knowledgeable group.
Do stop trolling!
No, your argument is based around repeated assertions that the Australian electorate is largely ignorant of negative connotation of the term âLibertarianâ and that those connotations are most significantly American. Assertions for which, dare I say it, youâve provided no citations.
My argument is that youâve constructed your own little universe to support your case. Real world experience shows, as I said:
The reflex challenge is a debating tactic. Itâs calculated to break your opponentâs rhythm and bog them down chasing detail of little value. The focus is more on winning the point than seeking truth.
Itâs also a form of trolling. The wisest response is to ignore it.
It could be said that the tactics here are more informative than the debate.
Thank you for your reply. I specifically like that it clearly targets the issue being discussed and puts forward your opinions and purposes for those opinions, which indeed were not immediately apparent in the beginning.
I will accept on face value your proposition that you are acting in good faith, though I suspect in both the case of you and I we are reading further into what the other is writing than what is intended. I get particularly offended when I feel someone is intentionally spinning my phrasing to be more than what it is, whether it was intentional or not.
The quality of the discourse has declined significantly since the beginning, no neutral observer would disagree.
The suggestion was that more detail is required in any argumentation or it is indeed disrespectful. I would like the quality of discourse specifically on this topic to remain at a high-standard. Single-sentence replies devolve into further snipes and then devolve into this reply. Letâs see together (not just me and @tserong but all contributors!) that this does not happen again in this thread.
Fair enough. I will consider it a misreading of intent and refer to my remarks above.
I am purposely trying to avoid the subjective aspects of what is, of course, almost an entirely subjective issue. However, as we know, there are objective aspects to branding, which is what my argumentation goes to the most. I am happy to exist under any brand as long as it meets the objectives of the Party that I subscribe to.
Yes, it may well be. But we can do market testing on the name if we spend a small amount of money on it, which is the usual approach for a rebrand. These are the reasons for having this discussion: work out what we might need to research further, whether better names become apparent (for which there is now another thread), answering lingering questions, and whether there are any strong arguments for retaining the current name.
It was my pleasure. I am quite happy to attempt to answer any questions that are put to me on this issue, I just need to unambiguously read those questions. Took a while for me to notice that there was a fundamental deficiency in my original post and for that I apologise.
Set this aside for a more detailed response:
It may be a valid point, but you didnât tease our any specific interpretation so it was left up to me to work out the actual point.
I am happy to concede the point that Australia is at this time largely dominated by American culture: television, movies, mannerisms, celebrities, drones, spies and military nightmares. Yes, we are slowly turning into a miniature America.
I have a few observations, and let me know if this follows your general pattern of thinking:
What I found interesting was even on that Urban Dictionary page, the keywords are: republican - conservative - ron paul libertarianism - liberal - democrat - politics - freedom - liberty - government
Those keywords cover the full spectrum of American politics, and a single Republican who self-identifies as libertarian.
I agree that the fears about political cross-interpretation are not unfounded, but I do not believe they are significant enough to cause an issue. The Democrats survived for quite a long time without comparison to the American synonym party, and calling yourself a Republican in Australia has a completely different meaning to that in the US. Why should libertarian be any different?
I argue that it isnât, because at itâs worse, even anecdotally, Leyonhjelm pops up, who while hilariously mimicking an American ideologue, is a flash in the pan that will go away. Prior to his election, not a single person had a clue what the LDP was, and after the next, they will continue their lack of awareness. His politics are simply highly unpopular, except for the actual social libertarian aspects of his platform, we he very weakly represents.
I am not familiar where else in the Australian context libertarianism ever pops up. I may add a section to the FAQ about why I am confident the Party could overcome any obstacles any future name might throw at us.
An article in Crikey today (paywall) had the following interesting paragraph:
At the 2013 federal election, the Sex Party was the strongest performer out of what might be identified as a âleft-libertarianâ bloc encompassing the Pirate Party, which represents an internet-age brand of social liberalism that has yielded electoral successes for sibling parties in Germany and Sweden; the long-established and self-explanatory Help End Marijuana Prohibition; and the now defunct WikiLeaks Party (it should be noted that these voters did not favour the Liberal Democratic Party, which seems to be struggling to convey the message that it is libertarian rather than conservative).
