Substantial Fairness in Semantics and Strategies for the Level Playing Field

“The State needs to act as a level playing field, treating all substantive belief systems fairly“. Dr Neil Peach’s Question.

First, to recap what the Level Playing Field is:

*****

Semantics and Strategies for the Level Playing Field

by Dr Neville Buch (MPHA, Queensland; Interdisciplinary Researcher in Humanist Australia Limited)

1. Thinking in a simple binary of religion versus secularity only confuses on what is happening on the political landscape (states of affair) and changes in the political landscape (reform). Behind the simple binary of religion versus secularity are also too simplistic binaries, e.g. idealism versus realism.

2. The confusion of a simple binary is a political device to deliberately confuse the public away from understanding political options intelligently.

3. The State needs to act as a level playing field, treating all substantive belief systems fairly, even as the society may be preferential in the shifting tides between worldviews.

4. The option of a prevailing political worldview is never a simple binary but as follows (contemporary scholarly description):

1. Established Tradition: which is resistant to reform, e.g. Hobbes’ Leviathan, Burkean conservatism, Buckley’s neo-conservatism (although neo-conservatism is more reactionary);
2. Utopian: a movement to a singular ideal system, e.g. Marx’s end of state, anarchism;
3. Liberal: with a presumption for the level playing field, and there are several options theorised:

1. tabula rasa and tolerance, i.e. Locke;

1. utilitarian choice and scientific neutrality, i.e. Mill, and Rawl (added the principle of veiled ignorance on all identities);

iii.      closed constitutionalism with the fixed choice of perceived origins of the people (res publica), i.e., Jefferson, Hamiton, Lincoln;

1. open constitutionalism, negotiated in periodical reform between relevant worldviews for common grounds, i.e. Habermas’ dialogical approach.

5. The last option (iv. open constitutionalism) delivers, for most of the society and the political health of the state, the best case of a level playing field. The dialogical approach works from removing the privilege status for any grouping.

6. Understanding the best option (iv. open constitutionalism) means moving away from any singular binary that confuses the conversation for reform. This is the insight of Habermas’ communicative action.

*****

Neil’s question is asking to concrete the abstract principles, as regards: “The State needs to act as a level playing field, treating all substantive belief systems fairly“. Lets make substantial, fair, and concrete the abstract principles:

1. When persons have an argument, debate, or a conversation, to step aside from the thinking in a simple binary of religion or idealism versus secularity or realism nonsense, and look at what is really happening on the political landscape (states of affair) and set up a comprehensive changes reform plan in the political landscape (specified to the context).

2. To refuse to act or think in the confusion of a simple binary, and voice against a political device to deliberately confuse the public away from understanding political options intelligently.

3. The State is not separate in acting out these principles as a level playing field, treating all substantive belief systems fairly, even as the society may be preferential in the shifting tides between worldviews. The State is made up of persons who make decisions for the collective. State policy-making needs to conform to that process. Thus, contrary to the abusive neutrality thinking, decisions are always personal, but needs to be so personal as to be comprehensive for the whole population. Substantive means the comprehensive research has to be publicly available and to be read. Fairness means that everyone has fair income for their ‘social work’. Comprehensive does not mean total nor totalitarian (this is the foolish cynical thinking). Comprehensiveness means openness to learning and making allowances for the unknown.

4. Concretely, we are not bounded to any option of a prevailing political worldview and there is never a simple binary but as follows (contemporary scholarly description):

1. Established Tradition: which is resistant to reform, e.g. Hobbes’ Leviathan, Burkean conservatism, Buckley’s neo-conservatism (although neo-conservatism is more reactionary). Those in the LNP have the capacity to stand against the anti-progressivist thinking. There is such a thing as conversative progressivism;
2. Utopian: a movement to a singular ideal system, e.g. Marx’s end of state, anarchism. This will only work for socialists when they understand utopia as utopia. Compromise is always required and the compromise has to always be fair, that is, providing a equal flourishing place for everyone;
3. Liberal: with a presumption for the level playing field, and there are several options theorised:

1. tabula rasa and tolerance, i.e. Locke. Proven to be problematic, but, with all the problems, there is still a place in our thinking for scraping our previous enterprises and begin again, and tolerance must remain as a first step base;

1. utilitarian choice and scientific neutrality, i.e. Mill, and Rawl (added the principle of veiled ignorance on all identities), proven to be problematic, but there is still a place in our thinking for utility and neutrality;

iii.      closed constitutionalism with the fixed choice of perceived origins of the people (res publica), i.e., Jefferson, Hamiton, Lincoln. Proven to be problematic, but origin stories have their place, it is only not to be trapped by them;

1. open constitutionalism, negotiated in periodical reform between relevant worldviews for common grounds, i.e. Habermas’ dialogical approach. Probably, the best set of steps forward, and concretely, means Australians meeting together and considering the Habermasian model;

5. The last option (iv. open constitutionalism) delivers, for most of the society and the political health of the state, the best case of a level playing field. The dialogical approach works from removing the privilege status for any grouping. Concretely, it is a conversation on the difference between hierarchy and the Level Playing Field: the incommensurability and the compatibility. The Level Playing Field is not for all human contexts and human conditions. Some conditions require hierarchy. Those who know more, and know more skillfully, have a seat (or should have a seat) higher than those who are still proceeding further back on the (specific) scale. Nevertheless, there must be a level playing field in the opportunity to learn;

6. Understanding the best option (iv. open constitutionalism) means moving away from any singular binary that confuses the conversation for reform. This is the insight of Habermas’ communicative action. There are concrete processes of communication but it requires persons, such as me, to be contracted or employed.

Featured Image: Dr-Neville-Buch-with-Fryer-Manager-Simon-Farley-at-the-Geopoetry-Talk-UQ-30-Oct-18.jpg

The following two tabs change content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Neville Buch

Professional Historian at Professional Historians Association (Queensland) Inc.

Neville Buch (Pronounced Book) Ph.D. is a certified member of the Professional Historians Association (Queensland). Since 2010 he has operated a sole trade business in history consultancy. He was a Q ANZAC 100 Fellow 2014-2015 at the State Library of Queensland. Dr Buch was the PHA (Qld) e-Bulletin, the monthly state association’s electronic publication, and was a member of its Management Committee. He is the Managing Director of the Brisbane Southside History Network.

Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)

• Where Have All the Flowers Gone… history? - May 19, 2025
• Misunderstandings about Unemployment and Under-Employment - May 16, 2025
• Persons Not Listening, Not Reading, Not Thinking: When will there be Change Behaviour? - May 15, 2025