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.
That’s what makes this proposal a fairly difficult name. Also, we’re not a bank trying to sell a mortgage.
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”.
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.
First, you were warned:
Then, you showed that you already knew:
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:
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.
Going to ignore the goading and get to the crux.
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.
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.
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.
Of course they are not the same, but ‘social equality’ is the constitutional principle to which ‘equity’ best relates.
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.
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 Libertarian Party of Australia - Wikipedia and http://libertarian.net.au/)
Neither the American or Australian libertarian parties have ever achieved enough momentum to get significant local attention.
And by ‘significant’, I mean ‘more than us’.
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…
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).
Perhaps not the name, but the connotations of the name.
If Libertarianism doesn’t 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 you’re suffering Confirmation Bias; subconsciously turning a blind eye to that which doesn’t support your case.
Doesn’t the mere fact that you need to temper the term trigger any alarms?
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.
Which are?
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.
Both, hence my proposal.
[citation needed]
0.5% in 2013 and barely any press coverage since doesn’t 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, 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.
Perhaps this might help.
Now you’re just being deliberately difficult. This whole thing is speculative. What’s 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 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
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 “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.
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.
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.
I have updated my post to detail this question more:
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.
I’m not approaching this as a tribal issue, it was simply an observation about where the debate seems to have wound up.
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.
What a peculiar interpretation! You repeatedly assert that the term “Libertarian” 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 “Libertarian” and that those connotations are most significantly American. Assertions for which, dare I say it, you’ve provided no citations.
My argument is that you’ve constructed your own little universe to support your case. Real world experience shows, as I said: