Diff for "StatistFallacies/AgreeToDisagree"

Fallacy:

Long discussion pointing out that force against peaceful individuals is wrong, etc. with stastists defending such force (using some of the other fallacies in the list).

Statist: Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree….

Response:

• Oh god, I hate it. The same thing with "It's just my opinion!!!" Um, your opinion is wrong. You can't spout off copious amounts of bull and then claim it's your opinion like I'm not going to deconstruct all the idiocy you just vomited in my direction. —Joey Rodman

Often the statist will conclude with both parties will "just have to agree to disagree" or similar after a drawn out debate where their defense of the state and harm against peaceful individuals has been found wanting.

The problem with this seemingly congenial note is that it assumes the discussion was a mere difference of opinion—as though those who oppose violence against peaceful people are on equal moral, economic, and logical footing as those who favor mass organized extortion and enslavement of millions. The existence of government, and more generically, all initiated violence and threats, is necessarily immoral; and there is no moral equivalence between doing such harm and refraining from it. Attempting to whitewash the discussion as if both were the same and thus both disputants were morally equivalent is dishonest.

If "agreeing to disagree" is your goal then that still means you must accept voluntaryism, because it alone allows for me to disagree with you without harm, whereas the government "solutions" of the statist gives me no say and are imposed by force.

If this reasoning were applied to battery, it would not be considered acceptable: "Oh, you don't want me to beat you? But I do want to beat you! I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree… while I beat you to death, of course." (DBR, based on comment by Benjamin Richards)