What I mean is the left/communal/socialist ideology of economic and property equality is one of flattening the hierarchy of means of production and thus economic inequality present in capitalism, libertarians on the contrary believe in a natural hierarchy but less monopoly on authority, more like natural selection if you will, think ancaps, but green libertarians are more community focused and want better societal outcomes than ancaps so like mutualism and cooperation. Nazis had capitalist and social hierarchy structures and business and land ownership and capitalist investment, however still had socialist goals too like autobahn and some control over unions, but they were on authoritarian side. Georgists is particularly centrist libertarian down the middle as a hybrid of both decreasing “income tax is theft” whilst raising funds for a just minarchy via decreasing “land monopolisation is theft”.
Take a look at the official Nazi platform: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
Points 9 thru about 22 of 25, are clearly socialist though wildly authoritarian, but they also hated communists, so who knows.
Today, in a left-right single dimensional discussion, they get called far-right, leading to crazy notions like horseshoe theory, like if you go hard right enough, you end up back on the left.
I have memes for that too.
As far as I’m concerned Nazis are far right.
Wikipedia agrees: Far right
From the wiki on Nazism:
National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæt-/),[1] is the ideology and set of practices associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party, Nazi Germany and other far-right groups. Usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism’s development was influenced by German nationalism (especially Pan-Germanism), the Völkisch movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged during the Weimar Republic after Germany’s defeat in First World War.
I have no idea how they could possibly be centrist, they are authoritarian, corrupt and serve the powerful.
You guys are weird. You can’t just redefine the political spectrum, otherwise no-one can comprehend you.
Consider that many on the right argue they were leftist since “they were socialist and had socialist policies”.
But at the same time he abolished unions and was hierarchical and elitist.
People tend to argue either way (left or right) depending on whether your on the left or right. I am centre-left-geolibertarian-georgist so makes sense that i will argue he was centre-right-authoritarian as i can see he combined ideologies from both sides. No matter what he was in reality, there is some belief/perception that the movement was at least centre-right, at least amongst some centrists, so if your target market includes attracting libertarian centrists, perhaps consider not calling it centrist…because it makes us nervous, is my argument, as a centrist… 
Got any citations for those claims?
We are a political party, we have to be able to converse with, and importantly make sense to the general public. We need to convince them to vote for us. We can’t waste energy on trying to redefine the political spectrum. People will rightly think we are mad. I have never heard of the Nazis being called left wing or centrist and I have been in politics for 20 years.
It is generally accepted by the general public and political academics that the Nazis were on the far right. We need to work with the general consensus on terminology if we wish to be able to convince people we are sane and worth voting for.
well perhaps it is just amongst the Youth!!!
Theres been many right leaning members in AYPS a facebook political group for youth (tends to range from 16-35yos but sometimes older too) that have claimed Hitler and Nazis are leftist/socialist! The common argument is mostly based on the parties name, and Autobahn, but they believe it! maybe it is just a minority, but i fear it might be a large number of people on the right…
Anyways, personally, regardless of that issue, i think Centrist Party sounds quite boring…
I would suggest another name like Freedom Party, if it were to be renamed. Or Freedom Australia Party (FAP)
In the same Wikipedia page you quoted, that starts by labelling them far-right, there is an entire section dedicated to “Position within the political spectrum”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Hitler himself apparently claimed they were neither left or right.
Linked from there, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program lists a platform loaded with socialist agenda items (points 9 to 22) as I mentioned earlier. Things like collectivism, eliminating debt slavery, pensions, nationalisation of industries (like in communism), public education, anti-child labour etc. That would all be great, if not for the racism, war and genocide.
It seems that if you have socialist policies, you are left, unless the reason you have them are authoritarian and genocidal, in which case you are far right. This is not me redefining anything. It’s just what the literature says, and it explains why people come out with things like horseshoe theory. They’re just trying to make sense of the contradictions.
IMHO, the problem is really just using too few dimensions to define politics.
The way i like to identify my libertarianism (is the way Cato Institute does) which is “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” which in itself is a hybrid of left and right if you take left and right to mean liberal and conservative which America mainly does. So the most of America, and even Australia in common dialogue are only using the one dimension. That description touches on the libertarian/authoritarian dimension abit at least.
However, the libertarian party in America, also attracts a lot of conservatives who either are ruthless because of idealogy (Rand etc) or just don’t like tax (which is funny if they’re Christian because the bible says give unto caesar what is caesars). However, many have no care about other people or society cohesiveness.
Similarly, one could argue that hitler’s nazism was “socially illiberal and fiscally non-conservative” because of his racial and superiority complex policies and he spent alot too (citation needed). So IMO Hitlers Nazism was pretty much opposite to Green quadrant or left of centre libertarian (reflected over both axises). And thats why i place it there on those models, but others have too, also based on looking at the hybrid of policies and structure (hierarchy) in itself. But your right, you could have like a 3 dimensional model or a 10 dimensional model like String Theory that would differentiate it more accurately.
I was going to say that I agree the two are not comparable.
So the case for not including that in the Bill of Rights has to be strong.
And your case there @MarkG is what i think and also probably what most pirates and most aussies think too…
However, looking at the wiki, its not all upfront.
In comparison, there are probably a decent amount of LDP supporters who were anti gay marriage, and yet i agree totally with Lleydonhjelms (pro SSM) view on that and he has that written up on the website.
So IMO it might be a good idea to take a “full disclosure” transparent approach to why we are for maintaining the current situation (as opposed to avoiding the issue), seems we are positioned as the libertarian left party and libertarian is often if not always connotated with gun freedoms even if incorrectly or naiively so.
We are trying to avoid labels like libertarian left because words are easily tainted by other movements. We are just Pirate. Nothing to do with LDP.
hmm, thats why i like the word Freedom.
But the same argument for the greater freedoms to walk down the street without getting shot etc can be made transparently. Since a Bill of Rights is also known as an American thing, though many other countries have them too, i think the question would still come up a lot. im not sure how many other parties if any are also proposing a BOR, but it is an attractive proposal for a libertarian or freedomeer on the left, even if those words are avoided. And perhaps the transparent approach can attract right or centre libertarians too (as i dont believe its an LDP proposal) or anyone else that likes freedoms and rights…
I identify as libertarian left. It encapsulates my and our positions too well to be held back by unfair misconceptions. We should be reclaiming innocent words and phrases that groups we may disagree with have coopted.
There’s a very niche sub-issue of gun control which has a strong underground following and is largely separate from other areas (such as hunting, self defence etc) and that is the overregulation of airsoft. To my knowledge no other political entity has touched this except those already in favour of looser gun controls.
The situation is that airsoft guns currently fall under the same legislation as rifles despite being slightly less dangerous than paintball markers (roughly the same muzzle velocity and fire rate but the airsoft pellets are smaller and softer). This makes airsoft effectively illegal as ownership of one requires a full firearms licence along with various other restrictions.
There is a small but vibrant community of Australians who regularly travel to NZ to play in the airsoft tournaments over there (Airsoft Council of Australia) and they claim to have 16,000 supporters. I’m reaching out to them at the moment to potentially assist us in preparing a gun control policy amendment.
even if it is technically correct (the best kind) it’s not worth our efforts to reclaim these words when used together, as when used individually these words refer to something else.
It’s just as much battle as explaining what Pirate means…
We are no further ahead, and at least no one else uses Pirate (like Liberal Democrats sometimes get unintended votes from some Liberal supporters due to name confusion)
I’d rather leave name debates for another time, the last one was extremely exhausting for the party.
So what is wrong with the word Freedom?
I’m not aware of any issues with the word Freedom. I.e. There isn’t a well known “freedom party” or “freedom movement” or “freedom ideology” which on anyway goes against our views on Freedom. But I’m not keen on a discussion on changing our name to another neutral word at the moment either because that happened 1-2 years ago and it was an utter disaster, the feelings are still raw, but go ahead and say that the Pirate Party is about Freedom… No issues there
I didn’t realise there were some authoritarians already trying to fly the freedom flag.
How unfortunate. Perhaps a missed opportunity.
I do note that they aren’t listed on the AEC website as a registered party despite having 2000 FB members.
Then again, it is kind of lay down and die strategy if we just let the right take all the good names like liberty and freedom. Its as if we think their philosophies on those things are more deserving.
I still think it would be a broader brand for our beliefs. Clearly those whom are interested in freedom could discern by policy which is truly free and those that are opportunistic might give us votes anyhow.
Many people whom are not versed in politics see Pirates as synonymous with theft or subversion.
From a branding perspective its not that great. Psychologically it puts us as an underdog whom mightn’t be taken seriously. But liberty and freedom are serious subjects. Its like the difference between novelty and principle.
They might be “Party For Freedom”, sharing their authoritarian propaganda.
But we could be “Freedom Party” or “Freedom Australia Party” or “True Freedom Party”
It’s just another word for nothing left to lose? 
There is lots left to lose.
They are even directly attacking the pirate brand.
They will be in Sydney this weekend.
Ahem, you may just be too young to recognize the song lyrics I was quoting.
It’s from Janis Joplin’s song Me and Bobby McGee.