As human beings, we orient ourselves in the world through society. Our social networks are built from the bottom up, from our day-to-day interactions with other individuals and our exchanges of courtesies, knowledge, and goods with other people. We use the reactions of others to keep us sane and rational, and through the systemic process of negotiating our relationship with society, we tap into the wisdom and experience of our neighbors and our ancestors.
It is on this level that we work out the details of interpersonal protocol: knowing when someone prefers to be addressed by their full name or a nickname, or by an honorific title such as Doctor. Disregarding the other party’s expressed preference is a breach of etiquette, and may carry a penalty in the form of a verbal rebuke or simply a harsh look from the offended party. Except in the military (where correct use of rank titles is enforced by regulations and by military law), there is no legal consequence to such a social offense because it does not belong to the realm of the State.
And that’s as it should be. The social penalty for a violation of etiquette is incremental (that is, you can dial it up and down) and not categorical (a one-size-fits-all mandatory punishment). This is the social market.
But in today’s world, the elites and technocrats want to impose a top-down model. “Hate speech” laws and “preferred pronouns” give the State power to police and control personal interactions. This is central planning applied to the social market.