What happens to liberalism when they run out of other people's money for income redistribution?

It ceases to misquote prominent people because it can no longer afford to do so.

If you don't like taxes, start your own country.

there is a right level to tax people, and it is between 0% and 100%. there is nothing wrong with compulsion to pay the state to help ensure the health of the state, as long as the powers determining the levels of taxation are elected in a truly fair and representative manner.

Unless you live in a communist society. If there is no private property, taxes are pretty much moot.

i view socialism as being communism but granting many more freedoms of ownership to the people. can't own everything unfettered, but you can own land and reasonable weapons and safe drugs and all that while the government makes sure things don't get out of whack.

Socialism doesn't so much "grant freedoms" as describe how the economy works. Communism hinders property rights the way only a political system can.

This is a word that has a set connotation with it, like 'retarded' or 'gay'

you can thank society for this.

"there is a right level to tax people, and it is between 0% and 100%. there is nothing wrong with compulsion to pay the state to help ensure the health of the state, as long as the powers determining the levels of taxation are elected in a truly fair and representative manner."

There are those who say the compulsion is always wrong. Violence enacted by the state to separate you from your rightful earnings/wealth.

And that all societal needs should be handled by charitable deeds. Oddly i usually here right-wing americans putting forth this view, even though it sounds rather more like a left-wing radical anarchist one. But i actually think there are some ways that you can go so far left that you wrap around to the right...

@y2kkjbk : whether a party with those 'socialist' policies describes itself as liberal or socialist depends entirely in what flag it happens to be waving.

Which seems only loosely related to the policy, based on history and the context of country and opposition...

Radical leftist and radical rightist are both anarchic.

Compare Michael Moore to Rick Perry who wants to promote dissolving the union and seceeding for Texas.

Radical opposites, one who wants to scathingly pick apart every aspect of capitalist greed and american imperialism, and the other who wants to destroy america. Tell me Michael Moore is an anarchist and I will literally burn your house down.

Documentaries to expose injustice are important to learn the truth. Jonathon Kozols Savage Inequalities comes to mind. We need rakes and rogues to pick apart the nonsense.

If you think Michael Moore and Rick Perry are radicals, then you have pretty low standards.

Secession is not radical?

Yeah, secession left the United States as an independent country. It is a tried and tested strategy. Pretty conservative if you axe me :p

Or more to the point, far from Anarchy. A proposal to overturn property rights and replace them with something akin to usage rights, that would be radical.

Imagine just intellectual property. You'd have a right to use it and exploit it for as long as you wanted. But you'd have no right to stop people selling fan-fiction and derived works. That is fairly radical... (Though abolishing government and replacing representative democracy with... Something, that is far more radical)

"Secession is not radical?"
We're talking about Texas...

Civil war was pretty effective your right South really accomplished a lot. not anarchy at all.

You cant cherry pick what wars support your belief in revolt being good and ignore instances where secession is just awful for loss of life. Incredibly weak anecdotal argument to try to claim the american revolution is in any way whatsoever comparable to a secession by texas simply because they "disagree" with liberalism.
You arent literally trying to say that I hope?

Do you know what anarchy is?

Anarchy is no form of govt at all. No elections. no civil order. nothing. no cops. no firefighters. no standing army aligned to any central govt. Basically Syria if Assad dies.

"no standing army aligned to any central govt. "
The US never really had a standing army like this until after WWII

But has always been staunchly disgusted by anarchists.

If Texas secedes they will be great until their roads shut down in utter disrepair. ranchers and farmers get upset at no more subsidies. Their standing army is unaffordable because they force deported thousands of laborers just as the Spanish did to the Mariscoes. And yes that is anarchy. And not only would it be petty but it would destroy themself into anarchy. So yes I do think Rick Perry is a radical to suggest secession as a resolve to the Obama doctrine.

But it's also nothing new. Secession has been Texas's go-to response every time they think they're getting a raw deal. "Mexico just abolished slavery? Well, let's secede." "Lincoln got elected? Well, let's secede."
For Texas, it's just sort of how they are.

Not to mention Texas has a growing economy and is not only more willing but also more capable of doing so than several other states.

That I agree with.

Whom do you consider radical then? I dont think the old warhawk class of Republicans like Lindsay Graham and John McCain are radical at all. Just relying on old methods that didnt work to solve modern problems. War isnt necessarily a radical solution for some of these people. I would say radical would be extreme libertarians who are absurdly out of touch with the electorate. Gallup polling revealed in the last election that even though everyone was claiming Ron Paul was a genius he was polling nationwide at less than a .7%

I think i would class Ron Paul as a radical...

None of them are "radical" because they don't support use of violence to achieve political change.