Imagine if you agreed with your partner, business or personal, that in order for us to move forward we needed to agree or at least not disagree. And that all that was needed to veto something was to state that “I don’t agree”, without even requiring an explanation or reason why. That the power lies in the hand of the person disagreeing, what would this mean?

Well, first off, isn’t that what every relationship consists of or at least should consist of? And if not then what is the alternative?

If this were the case, to truly agree to disagree and veto any or every decision, firstly there would be no place for anger or rushing, in this situation, using coercion.

The only way forward is together and to form agreements based on considered argument from the person making the point to the dissenter. And no, in this case argument does not mean losing our cool because either one has the right to disagree and even veto the conversation at any point by stating that they simply disagree with the other’s approach.

What this means is that the person being the dissenter in the relationship is protected at all times from the tiniest of abuses or perceived abuse.

This is the simplest and most powerful way I know how to be protected and to protect my partner when dissenting even if they don’t agree outside the bounds of the context of the relationship.

Of course you would have every right to not agree or to even disagree with me here but I would prefer not entering into any dispute unless we formed such an agreement, upfront, as I fear that it would not be beneficial or edifying for us without having prior, agreed to, rules of engagement.

So here is my proposal for such engagement. What’s yours and just lets compare for now?