Politics is an immoral dead-end

[srqrebel]

Okay, after reseaching the traditional usage (not subjective dictionary definitions) of the term "the State", I think I finally understand what Error and Maineshark (and others) are speaking of when they say the State does not exist -- and when understood correctly, their argument is quite valid.

Here are several examples of the traditional usage of the term "State":

...by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
The United States Declaration of Independence

On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel...

...This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ruth Ann Minner, by the authority vested in me as Governor of the State of Delaware, do hereby declare and order as follows...
http://governor.delaware.gov/orders/webexecorder27.shtml

By the authority vested in me by the State of New Hampshire, I pronounce this couple to be husband and wife. http://www.tmclark.com/JP/vows.html

It is clear from these examples that the traditional usage of the term "State" is indeed not synonymous with the traditional usage of the term "government".  Government is used to denote only the individuals that administer the imaginary "will' of the "people", and the power structure those individuals use.  The State is used to denote a fictional entity that supposedly includes all the people ("citizens") in a geographical area -- not just those who administer the "people's collective will" -- and the "will" of this imaginary "collective" ostensibly supersedes the will of any individual within such geographic area.

In short, the "State" refers to an imaginary collective, with its own "rights" and "will" independent of, and superceding, the rights and will of any individual; the "government" is merely the administrative body of the State.

The single point that I was missing all along, was that the classic definition of "the State" includes everyone within a geographic area, including me and you, whether we like it or not.  That makes the State fictional indeed, because there is no such thing as "a collective will" or "collective rights", only sovereign individuals and individual rights.

The reason this was such a blind spot for me, is that as far back as I can recall giving any thought to it, I have implicitly understood the supremacy of the individual.  Since I have never been deluded by the illusion of "the collective", it did not occur to me that most people implicitly believe in "a supreme collective".  Hence, the only definition of "State" that made sense to me was as a synonym for "government".  Also, I always tended to think of the government's claim of authority as one of "right by might", based on their monopoly on force, rather than "right by will of the collective".

Now that I understand that "State" refers to "the collective", I will revise what I stated earlier in reference to the State vs. Church analogy.

The term that corresponds to "State" (imaginary supreme collective) in this analogy is "god" (imaginary supreme ruler).

The term that corresponds to "the church" is "the government".  They both base their "authority" on an illusion.  (This is not a perfect analogy, as "the church" generally includes lay members; "the government" does not include civilians.)

Both the imaginary supreme collective called "State" and the imaginary supreme ruler called "God" are illusions used by criminal minds to illegitimately claim external authority over the sovereign individual.

This has been very educational for me, in terms of understanding what facilitates the continued existence of the criminal power structure -- specifically, that it is not their monopoly on force, but the widespread illusion of a "supreme collective will".

[Eli]

So given the above understanding srq, does that change the idea that voting is violence for you at all.  And forgive me but after 40 odd pages I can't seem to remember which side of that part of the debate you are on. 

So, given that the state doesn't exist, only individuals do, how does my vote constitute an act of evil?  V, feel free to field this one.

[anthonybpugh]

I don't think you are really wrong about anything, I just believe you have some of your terms muddled. 

There is generally an attempt to define words in the dictionary in a neutral manner. 

In a few of your examples, such as the State of New Hampshire or the State of New York the state is simply a political sub-division.  It is used in an entirely different context. 

I have not seen any definitions of state that included all the people under its control.  There has always been some kind of distinction between the state and the people and if the discussion is making no distinction between the government and the people they will typically use society.   

You can see a lot of examples of this as well ie. 'Separation of Church and State' and 'compelling state interest' etc.  If you go through all political writings and replace the word state with government, you will not have changed the meaning at all.    Separation of church and state does not lose any meaning if you say separation of church and government or compelling government interest.  In pretty much every writing that I have ever seen on politics and in everyday usage of the word, state and government are used interchangeably. 

The whole thing about collective will is a different issue altogether.  It is the philosophical abstraction used to justify why the state has legitimacy but that is distinct from the actual existence of the state.  It is something used to say why the state is good.  It is also used in the normative sense in that it says what the state ought to do. 

If you were to go through your post and replace society with state you would be far more accurate.

about the whole state being mythical.  I am not sure where everyone is getting the notion that it is mythical.  That has not been adequately explained.  You do have one definition from Max Weber which in part defines the state as being the institution with the legitimate monopoly on the use of force but that is more of a normative statement and itself rests upon some rather subjective views on what ought to be instead of what actually is. 

[Eli]

Okay this is a vast oversimplification, and an unfair tactic, but here goes.  Anthony, V, all you 'there is a state' guys, I have a simple task to for you.  Point to the state.  This is critical to your argument that my vote is evil.  If my vote contributes to the state in some way there must be a state, point it out to me.

Every where I look I don't see a state.  I see people, who can be educated in various way, who labor under the belief that there is a state, and that it has valid authority.  I believe that I can use a vote, in some cases, to educate those people about liberty.

[Vitruvian]

If we are to accept the "traditional" definition srqrebel has offered, then, of course, the State cannot exist.  However, I don't think this definition is of much use to us.

So, given that the state doesn't exist, only individuals do, how does my vote constitute an act of evil?  V, feel free to field this one.

I have never claimed that the State consists of anything more than the individuals who, together, comprise the "organization of the political means" (Franz Oppenheimer's definition of the State).  However, the morality of voting does not hinge on the existence of the State, but on the nature of the act itself.  The act of voting entails a set of presumptions and, like every other act, responsibility for its consequences.

From Robert LeFevre's essay, Abstain from Beans (http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/beans.html):

When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.

[Eli]

Alright V.  I'll bite.  What set of presumptions am I adopting (according to you and Bob LeFevre) when I vote?


Also, I take issue with the statement "When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power."   Emphasis mine.  We didn't do any such god damned thing.  Folks were voting before I was an egg and way before I was a sperm.  Again, I use voting as a way to minimize the power that very real enemies wield over me and mine.  In the case of Ron Paul, and in the lesser cases of Libertarian candidates I've voted for before, I vote because it allows me to spread the ideas of liberty through the same propaganda machine that statists use so effectively. 

And you've yet fo show a link between voting and evil.  Yes people DBA government do evil things.  But those people are each their acting on their own.  How does my vote somehow attach me to the evil they do?  Further how does my lobbying for ron paul, which has opened a number of people up to ideas of liberty that they wouldn't be receptive to outside their comfort zone, contribute to the evil that people DBA government do?

[anthonybpugh]

Okay this is a vast oversimplification, and an unfair tactic, but here goes.  Anthony, V, all you 'there is a state' guys, I have a simple task to for you.  Point to the state.  This is critical to your argument that my vote is evil.  If my vote contributes to the state in some way there must be a state, point it out to me.

Every where I look I don't see a state.  I see people, who can be educated in various way, who labor under the belief that there is a state, and that it has valid authority.  I believe that I can use a vote, in some cases, to educate those people about liberty.

I am not arguing against the whole voting is evil thing.  V is arguing that.  My only contention here is the assertion about the existence of the state.  If you look back you will actually see several posts that I have made stating that voting can actually be good in that it goes hand in hand with institutions which can restrain political power.   

Your question presupposes that the state is something which can be easily identified and pointed to like it is some physical object.  Can you point to marriage?  Can you point to religion?  Can you point to stupid?  Can you point to an idea?  There are many things which we would all agree exist but which we cannot point to.  You are presupposing that only something that can be seen or touched or tasted can exist.   

That is also why there was a several page discussion about the definition of state.  Does the state exist?  Well I don't know.  What do you mean by state?  That is why I went to define that one term, because if I know what the word state means, then it would make the task of whether the state exists or not easier. 

So the definition of state says that it is a political association.  It doesn't say ALL political associations, just a political association.  Can you agree that political associations exist?  Of course, we can find them all over the place.  A political party is a political association.  We know it exists because we can go and observe the practice of people associating with each other in a political party.  That part we do know exists. 

How about the rest of it?  The parts about exercising effective dominion over a territory?   Dominion meaning control or rule.  Well there are political associations which do control or rule territory.  We see them all the time. 

so can I point to the state?  Not exactly but I can point to all the indicators of the state's existence. 
----------

Concerning why some of the others are stating that the state does not exist I can't say exactly.  I think some of it might be that their definitions somehow are entirely dependent upon ideas of legitimacy.  Or perhaps it is the whole thing about the power of the state has over us rests upon some philosophical fictions such as collective will or legitimacy based on voting.  I honestly cannot say because some people have been less than forthcoming in trying to clarify the basis for their claims. 

[MaineShark]

This is not about having skewed minds or refusal to accept objective reality, a charge which could just as easily apply to you as it could to me.

I'm a strict rationalist.  I accept nothing "on faith," and never insist that reality fit my wishes.  You certainly cannot say the same of yourself with any truthfulness.

Skewed minds my ass.  I forgot more about this subject than you'll ever know.

Which is an asinine comment, if I ever heard one... I think that's at about the level of maturity of those who told Vitruvian he was wrong because of his age.  As immature as I think he's behaved, he never stooped that low.  I guess you felt the need to do it, for him?

It is also pathetic that some of the people who are accusing others of not acting in good faith are then talking shit about other people.  Where is the good faith in that?  Perhaps you were put on ignore because you were obnoxious.  Perhaps this has nothing to do with having skewed minds or refusal to accept reality but because we all think for ourselves and have different opinions.  It is rather idiotic to accuse people of holding different views of being skewed and not having good faith.

Reality is not subject to your "opinions."  Reality exists objectively.  Your "different views" cannot modify reality.

A voluntary society likely would not be witness to political associations as we know them.  In context, the term political association should be taken to mean "one of various factions vying for monopolistic coercive power."  A polity of unanimous consent would obviate the formation of political associations because no coercive power would exist. Similarly, the concept of dominion, with the contextual meaning of "rule, domination, or control," each a synonym of coercion, is inimical to a voluntary society, where no person or group rules, dominates, or controls another.

Yes, clearly the words mean something different from what they mean, since what they mean would mean that you are wrong...

Words have meanings, not subject to your wishes.

I started this thread knowing that some people would probably take offense with its content, but my motivation was to persuade, not to offend.  I have attempted to remain civil but firm, and to avoid resorting to abusive language and tactics.  I can do no more to persuade you that I approach this debate in good faith.

Yeah, I usually "persuade" people by telling them they are evil.  Works well!

Indeed.  Anyone who cannot discuss things without using a computer to screen his incoming messages cannot be acting on good faith.  "La, la, la, I only want to hear things that agree with me!"

The whole purpose of having the "ignore" functionality is to screen abusive posters.

The purpose is to "screen" posts that you want to ignore, but don't have the maturity to actually ignore.  I can ignore any posts I want, but simply ignoring them.  I don't need a computer to do it for me.

I forgot to respond to this earlier, shyfrog.  No, I am not a Georgist.  As I have explained above, the word dominion, in the context of the Wikipedia definition of State, should be understood to mean coercive "rule, domination, or control," not the legitimate ownership of physical property.

"Should be"?  Why?  Because that would magically make you right, even though it isn't the meaning of the word?

The actual word actually means sovereignty, absolute ownership, etc.

I wonder if I should quote Konkin using the same definition for "State" that I have?  Not that it would do any good, with folks who are determined to twist the world to fit their skewed minds, rather than accepting objective reality...

That's funny... in this interview, Konkin makes repeated references to the State as a real entity:http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/610

I also find it funny that you would appeal to SEK3's opinion on the matter, after having said this:

Appeal to authority is not a proof.  It is, however, a good demonstration of the maturity of the one doing it, since it is essentially the same as the whole "the law is right, because it's the law" nonsense that statists are inclined to spout.

It was supposed to be funny, seeing as it was a joke.

Okay, after reseaching the traditional usage (not subjective dictionary definitions) of the term "the State", I think I finally understand what Error and Maineshark (and others) are speaking of when they say the State does not exist -- and when understood correctly, their argument is quite valid.

Thank you.  I appreciate that you took the time to do some research on this matter, instead of maintaining that your previous belief must be correct, regardless of the evidence.

In short, the "State" refers to an imaginary collective, with its own "rights" and "will" independent of, and superceding, the rights and will of any individual; the "government" is merely the administrative body of the State.

The single point that I was missing all along, was that the classic definition of "the State" includes everyone within a geographic area, including me and you, whether we like it or not.  That makes the State fictional indeed, because there is no such thing as "a collective will" or "collective rights", only sovereign individuals and individual rights.

Indeed.

The reason this was such a blind spot for me, is that as far back as I can recall giving any thought to it, I have implicitly understood the supremacy of the individual.  Since I have never been deluded by the illusion of "the collective", it did not occur to me that most people implicitly believe in "a supreme collective".  Hence, the only definition of "State" that made sense to me was as a synonym for "government".  Also, I always tended to think of the government's claim of authority as one of "right by might", based on their monopoly on force, rather than "right by will of the collective".

Now that I understand that "State" refers to "the collective", I will revise what I stated earlier in reference to the State vs. Church analogy.

The term that corresponds to "State" (imaginary supreme collective) in this analogy is "god" (imaginary supreme ruler).

The term that corresponds to "the church" is "the government".  They both base their "authority" on an illusion.  (This is not a perfect analogy, as "the church" generally includes lay members; "the government" does not include civilians.)

Both the imaginary supreme collective called "State" and the imaginary supreme ruler called "God" are illusions used by criminal minds to illegitimately claim external authority over the sovereign individual.

This has been very educational for me, in terms of understanding what facilitates the continued existence of the criminal power structure -- specifically, that it is not their monopoly on force, but the widespread illusion of a "supreme collective will".

I think you can consider the "government = church" analogy as more accurate than you think.  While the "church" contains lay members, the government could be said to include "civilians" in the form of those who willingly meld their lives with it, such as CEO's of big corporations who, while not technically members of the government, manage these half-governmental entities on its behalf.

Of course, the analogy breaks down because there could be a god of some sort.  I cannot rule that out in any rational manner.  On the other hand, there cannot be a "State," because its properties are logically impossible.

Joe

[Eli]

I am not arguing against the whole voting is evil thing.  V is arguing that.  My only contention here is the assertion about the existence of the state.  If you look back you will actually see several posts that I have made stating that voting can actually be good in that it goes hand in hand with institutions which can restrain political power.   

Your question presupposes that the state is something which can be easily identified and pointed to like it is some physical object.  Can you point to marriage?  Can you point to religion?  Can you point to stupid?  Can you point to an idea? 

In re the first point above, I should have said "the argument" rather than "your argument".

In re the second point.  Nope can't point to marriage, or religion, or an idea, or the state.  Because these things do not exist.  Or prehaps I should say they have no existence independant of those who believe in them and therefore cannot be considered moral actors.  Therefore they cannot make moral/immoral actions.  People, burdened with ideas of religion, marriage, the state and individual doses of the quality of stupid you mentioned above exist.  Your political associations do not exist either, except through their membership.  Individuals exist, they act, and they are morally responsible.  States, religions, marriages, ideas are not.  They do not exist in any way that is significant to a theory of morality, which is the framework for this discussion, wikipedia definitions aside.

[anthonybpugh]

I'm a strict rationalist.  I accept nothing "on faith," and never insist that reality fit my wishes.  You certainly cannot say the same of yourself with any truthfulness.

That is exactly what you are expecting me to do, is accept what you are saying on faith.  I am not going to accept what you say unless you can justify it with something credible.  You make a claim then say that logic insists that your position is correct but I do not see it.  I do not see how you got to your position.  I do not see how you 'demonstrated' your position to be correct.   

If your position is so logical, rational and correct then you shouldn't have that hard of a time making your point.  Instead of accusing me of trying to fit this to my wishes you can clarify your own positions.   I have been studying this subject for a long time and I simply do not recognize your arguments.  It isn't about whether your statements fit with my wishes, it is that your statements do not fit with everything that I have learned.  I want to know the logical sequence that caused you to arrive at the assertion that the state is mythical.   

It is a bit annoying that you seem to continue to imply all this bad intent on my part.  I ask for clarification or I ask that you support what you have been saying and you respond by accusing me of being immature and for trying to twist reality.  You dodge questions put before you, you imply bad intent on other people's parts and accuse them of doing the same things that you yourself have been engaging in.  You are as guilty as everyone else.   

[MaineShark]

That is exactly what you are expecting me to do, is accept what you are saying on faith.  I am not going to accept what you say unless you can justify it with something credible.  You make a claim then say that logic insists that your position is correct but I do not see it.  I do not see how you got to your position.  I do not see how you 'demonstrated' your position to be correct.

Given that the only thing you apparently will accept as a "demonstration" is if I find someone else who says the same thing, except then you'll say that you don't like him, and I should find another, and it will go on like that.  Which boils down to what, democracy of ideas?

If your position is so logical, rational and correct then you shouldn't have that hard of a time making your point.

To a rational person, no, I wouldn't have a hard time at all.

I have been studying this subject for a long time and I simply do not recognize your arguments.  It isn't about whether your statements fit with my wishes, it is that your statements do not fit with everything that I have learned.

Demonstrating that you haven't been studying this subject for a long time, since these are very, very basic ideas.  Sqrebel had no trouble figuring it out, once he did the research.  While converses aren't necessarily true, I could certainly say that your confusion indicates that you haven't done that basic research, at all.

I want to know the logical sequence that caused you to arrive at the assertion that the state is mythical.

If you are capable of reading plain English, read this thread.

It is a bit annoying that you seem to continue to imply all this bad intent on my part.

I only do it because you behave immaturely and twist things to support your nonsensical claims, while attempting to "silence" the opposition by claims that your position is supported by other "authorities," and then by claiming that you, yourself, are such an authority.  All according to script, pretty much...

You dodge questions put before you...

Name one.

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

In re the first point above, I should have said "the argument" rather than "your argument".

In re the second point.  Nope can't point to marriage, or religion, or an idea, or the state.  Because these things do not exist.  Or prehaps I should say they have no existence independant of those who believe in them and therefore cannot be considered moral actors.  Therefore they cannot make moral/immoral actions.  People, burdened with ideas of religion, marriage, the state and individual doses of the quality of stupid you mentioned above exist.  Your political associations do not exist either, except through their membership.  Individuals exist, they act, and they are morally responsible.  States, religions, marriages, ideas are not.  They do not exist in any way that is significant to a theory of morality, which is the framework for this discussion, wikipedia definitions aside.

so now you are adding caveats.  You want something that exists independent of other factors. 

Who ever said that those things exist independent of people?  Who ever said that they are moral actors?  How does that make them not exist? 

I am not arguing morality or responsibility or anything like that.  Ethics, morals, philosophy and all that does not come into play here.   It is irrelevant.   

Your political associations do not exist EXCEPT.....? 

This would seem to suggest you do agree that political associations exist.  and yes, it is dependent upon the moral actors who are members of those associations.  That is what exists, the associations.  You cannot touch marriage because marriage is a type of association. 

it is not that the state is A thing but rather it is a collection of many things which operate in a certain manner.  It is a large collection of individual actors, physical assets, organizational arrangements and individual actions taken together for a certain general purpose. 

Use another example.  the Economy.  Does the economy exist.  It does in the abstract.  You cannot point to an economy.  If you want to point to something you would have to point to all the individual actors, the physical assets, organizational arrangements and their actions.  It is also the beliefs of those individual actors which gives the economy the form it has.  it is the belief that certain items are desirable to others.  It is the belief that certain items can be exchanged for others.  Does the fact that you have this vaste network of individuals producing out of a belief that it can be exchanged for other things make it not real?  The belief does exist and the belief does to some extent bring form to the economy. 

[Eli]

The economy...it is belief...

I would say no, the economy does not exist per se.  It might be useful short hand to say the economy this, or the economy that, but there is no economy seperate from the individual interactions of individuals.  Wow this is getting tiresome.

Since you love definitions so much (I do to, it wasn't a dig)

ex·ist      /?g?z?st/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ig-zist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
1.   to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2.   to have life or animation; live.
3.   to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4.   to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5.   to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
ex·ist       (?g-z?st')  Pronunciation Key
intr.v.   ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists

   1. To have actual being; be real.
   2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
   3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
   4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
   5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).

Seems to me 'exist' implies a independent being.

[shyfrog]

Your original statement called the participation in State-sponsored political systems evil. Do you believe that property (land) ownership is inherently evil? Are you also a Georgist?

I forgot to respond to this earlier, shyfrog.  No, I am not a Georgist.  As I have explained above, the word dominion, in the context of the Wikipedia definition of State, should be understood to mean coercive "rule, domination, or control," not the legitimate ownership of physical property.

Do you believe that I am responsible for anyone else's actions other than my own?

I like to keep things really simple. There are two core systems in reality:

1. Individualism
2. Collectivism

Anyone who says that I am somehow responsible for the actions of others by the mere act of voting, eating, shitting, sleeping, living, breathing, buying, selling, etc. is a collectivist.

Collectivists seek to control.

Anyone who says I'm responsible for my own actions and no one else's, and by the same token agrees that any individual, despite claims to some unseen authority otherwise, is responsible for their own ultimate actions...is an individualist.

Individualists seek to liberate.

[anthonybpugh]

That is exactly what you are expecting me to do, is accept what you are saying on faith.  I am not going to accept what you say unless you can justify it with something credible.  You make a claim then say that logic insists that your position is correct but I do not see it.  I do not see how you got to your position.  I do not see how you 'demonstrated' your position to be correct.

Given that the only thing you apparently will accept as a "demonstration" is if I find someone else who says the same thing, except then you'll say that you don't like him, and I should find another, and it will go on like that.  Which boils down to what, democracy of ideas?

If your position is so logical, rational and correct then you shouldn't have that hard of a time making your point.

To a rational person, no, I wouldn't have a hard time at all.

I have been studying this subject for a long time and I simply do not recognize your arguments.  It isn't about whether your statements fit with my wishes, it is that your statements do not fit with everything that I have learned.

Demonstrating that you haven't been studying this subject for a long time, since these are very, very basic ideas.  Sqrebel had no trouble figuring it out, once he did the research.  While converses aren't necessarily true, I could certainly say that your confusion indicates that you haven't done that basic research, at all.

I want to know the logical sequence that caused you to arrive at the assertion that the state is mythical.

If you are capable of reading plain English, read this thread.

It is a bit annoying that you seem to continue to imply all this bad intent on my part.

I only do it because you behave immaturely and twist things to support your nonsensical claims, while attempting to "silence" the opposition by claims that your position is supported by other "authorities," and then by claiming that you, yourself, are such an authority.  All according to script, pretty much...

You dodge questions put before you...

Name one.

Joe

Enough with the petty personal attacks.

I am asking for a more authoritative source for several reasons.  You said before that you should post something from Konkin.  Is that where you arrived at the belief that the state does not exist?  If that is, then please share it.  If not, then post whatever source caused you to arrive at that conclusion. 

Another reason I asked for another source is so that I can evaluate it.  I have frequently come across cases where someone is commenting on something another author wrote and they make a mistake.  They either do not grasp a vital concept, they misinterpreted the meaning.  There have been a few times where someone has misunderstood the meaning just because they overlooked one word. 

Another reason is because it is a good way of dealing with a lot of dubious claims.  A person can go and say almost anything but it is not until that person can back it  up with some source or evidence that they can be taken more seriously.  If a claim is credible, then it should be safe to assume that it would be relatively easy to back that claim up with outside information.  If I am skeptical of any claim, the first thing I try to do is verify it with another source. 

Another reason is also associated with another point you raised.  Different people have different ways of explaining the same thing.  You can attempt to explain a simple concept to someone and spend hours without getting any headway yet they can go to someone else and understand it in under 5 minutes.  It isn't that I am unable to understand the ideas that you are trying to communicate.  It could simply be that you are not explaining it in a fashion which I can understand and I can more easily understand it if it were explained to me in a different manner.