How Does Civility Relate to 'Agree to Disagree'?

The following meme was shared on my Facebook feed:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civility is defined as “formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech.” 

My Facebook comments, .

Civility is possible as long as freedom of speech is unfettered. But make no mistake. The [political and legal] differences are profound, and civility can't paper it over. Either we retain (and restore) a constitution that protects individual rights and a government limited to that purpose, or we don't. If we don't, then there is no right to disagree and no respect. Respecting each other's viewpoint only works when each leaves those who disagree to go on about her life unmolested. Respect disappears when factions get to use the governmental apparatus to impose their viewpoints (and values) on everyone else by law, whether they consent or not. The [latter] is the politics we increasingly have now. That's why elections have become life-and-death battlegrounds. It's still tolerable because we still have the freedom to fight back with better ideas, free elections, and objective courts. All of that is increasingly at risk.

Apparently in response to my comment, another correspondent posted:

Agree to disagree and work toward finding solutions Thank you for your legacies ,JusticesGinsberg and Scalia. [sic]

I did not reply online. This correspondent is subtly altering the point of the meme. “Agree to disagree” has a nice ring to it. But it is never defined. I’ve addressed this line before (See "related reading" below). I’ll do so again here.

What, exactly, does it mean to “agree to disagree”? How do you “work toward finding solutions” when one party won’t allow the other to pursue their own course? If a parent wants an alternative to the public school for her child, but is still forced to pay for the public school through her taxes, where is the “agree to disagree”? The only solution is to free the parent to choose an alternative to the public school and allow the school taxes to follow her child to the parent’s choice of education. But try advocating school choice to any defender of public schools. She will say, “fine, switch your child to private schooling. But you don’t get to redirect your tax money for that purpose.” In effect, the public school defender is not “agreeing to disagree” with the dissenting parent, because she still insists on taking the parent’s money, without her consent, to support schools the parent doesn’t believe is good for her child. When one party gets to force their solution on the other party through government legal coercion, then the “winner” is not allowing disagreement. 

Agree to disagree presupposes the right to disagree. The right to disagree means the right not to support that which one doesn’t agree with. No solution to any issue is possible until all parties resolve to renounce force, and respect the rights of others to act on their own judgement. This doesn’t have to mean 100% satisfaction for either party. A solution may involve compromises that leaves each side partially satisfied but also accepting some things they don’t like. But as long as the agreement is voluntary, it’s morally acceptable. Voluntarism must reign, including in our politics. Then and only then can agree to disagree have any meaning, especially in the political and legal context (which is the context that the meme addresses). 

So how does civility relate to “agree to disagree”? Obviously, agree to disagree is the fundamentally important concept, morally and practically. Disrespectful people, even scoundrels, can be civil. In fact, a civil scoundrel is the most dangerous kind of person. But the commitment to allow and leave others free to disagree, including in the realm of politics and law, is the sign of a genuinely virtuous person. 

Related Reading:

What does it Mean to Say: "We'll Have to Agree to Disagree?"

For ‘Agree to Disagree’ to have Meaning, We Must Respect Each Others’ Rights

The ‘RIGHT’ to Disagree Must Also Mean the Right Not to be Forced

Is “Agree to Disagree” Really Possible?—Dr. Michael Hurd

Hurd approaches this issue from a personal, rather than political or legal, context. Here is an excerpt:

"Many disagreements won’t take away from your friendship. “Bill and I don’t like the same kind of movies, but we do connect on key things, and I like that about him. I’ll spend time with him doing non-movie things.” There are also political, religious or philosophical disagreements among friends. The reader asks at what point she should no longer be friends. There’s no preordained formula, other than the standard I’m offering here. There are a lot of bad philosophical ideas with which we are brainwashed from childhood. Some people internalize these ideas more than others. You can’t necessarily hold that against someone if they otherwise bring value to your life."