Rational argument and coercion have no place in Australian society

Our lives are chaotic. We look for consistency in illusions so that they become more believable than the chaos of our real lives.

Persuasion is not always rational and verbal persuasion is not always successful. But verbal persuasion is more acceptable than violent coercion.

Rational argument alone rarely changes attitudes and behaviours – the things governments and corporations live for.

Some government ministers in Julia Gillard’s Labor government attempt to present rational argument while others use violent coercion.

The rational argument folk, such as Greg Combet and Martin Ferguson, believe we will change our attitudes and behaviours simply because a rational argument is presented to us.

Combet says climate change is real and a carbon tax is the best medicine to make it better. End of story.

At the other extreme, then Health Minister Nicola Roxon used coercion in her attempts to stop people smoking; she hid the ciggie packets from view and created legislation that made it illegal to smoke in most places within society that people gather.

Neither of these extremes places value on persuasion and rhetorical presentation as effective tactics.

Nor do they take into account the possibility that some people do not want to change their attitudes or behaviours for any number of equally rational reasons.

Rational argument and coercion have gifted the opposition with a win win opportunity to apply non-rational persuasion to government policy.

Opposition leader Tony Abbott has become a skilled leader in the game of emotional persuasion and rhetorical presentation.

In presenting alternative emotional arguments to the boring rational persuasion and coercion of the government Abbott taps easily into the emotional chaos that has been allowed to surface.