... I shall disagree unilaterally.
"Agree to disagree."
Who came up with that ridiculous phrase? Surely a collectivist! Even in disagreement they must imply some sort of conglomeration under which, in disagreement, I am still in hock to some larger entity consisting, at the very least, of me and someone else who is seriously misinformed about something.
I am not for this sort of foolishness. It is similar to free trade. Sure, everybody from China to Cuba may want to make all sorts of stupid trade barriers; we do not need their agreement not to do things detrimental to their countries as a pretext to stop harming our own country; merely commit to free trade unilaterally and let them choke on their own stupidity.
One would think there was a NAFTA of conversation, or a U.N. resolution for the parameters of disagreement or some such nonsense...