I Disagree about Agreeing to Disagree

Most of the things about which I argue have definitive truths. In the past year or two I've been reading like nutscrazy all things Austrian economics and libertarian. I think I've finally found the truth of economics and human action. So, when these things come up in conversation and one of my opponents decides to quit because of complete logical annihilation, an "ok you win" never really comes. Instead, a "we'll just agree to disagree" comes.

What?

Agreeing to disagree means that there are two equally valuable opinions that each carry some sort of subjective valuation. But, say we're talking about math. You can't just say that two plus two equals five and we'll just "agree to disagree." When we're talking about objective, value-free truths, one is simply suggesting that we quit the debate before we've found and understood truth. Instead of admitting, "ok, you are correct," most of the time people are too caught up with ideology instead of seeking truth.

Now, say we're debating about some subjective thing, like fingernail polish. "Scotty, I like pink on your nails," one might say. "No," says Sam, "I like purple." Now, this is a situation where agreeing to disagree is perfectly legitimate. Each person comes from a different perspective and each have separate preferences.

So, Scott, what are you saying?

Agreeing to disagree only works when it involves subjective value! This is a hallmark of economics. We can agree or disagree that Pat Toomey or that other guy has a nice smile. But it is a TRUTH that when he enacts a policy, any policy, it involves forcing someone to do something other than how he would ordinarily act in the process of using means to achieve sought-after ends. Or, we can say that this coffee is too hot. Or maybe it's too strong. These are subjective valuations. But, what is TRUE is that when government intervenes in one's life, it necessarily makes some people do stuff they do not want to do, and rewards others.

Now, we can agree to disagree with this logical deduction, but you're wrong.