I think you're being way to cavalier about dismissing the "Straw Soviet" objection. The Soviet-style technocrats really did exist and they believed themselves to be doing the same thing you believe yourself to be doing.

Furthermore, the fact that you appear more concerned with memeticly engineering away objections then addressing their substance (or even admitting they have substance) is an even bigger red flag then the things you listed.

Also lots of people don't use the principle of charity at all. Some of the replies - including one from a philosophy professor - were exceedingly uncharitable. Thus don't expect people to use the principle of charity - especially when emotional memes like the Straw Soviet are around.

This is a misuse of the principal of charity. The principal of charity is applicable when someone is arguing for a logical proposition and might gloss over parts of the argument. When someone is making proposals for a course of action, that they'll presumably be in charge of implementing, you want to make damn sure he knows what he's doing.

Think about it this way, would you apply the principal of charity to a surgeon who says something that ambiguously suggest he believes in some discredited theory about how the body works? Especially if there had recently been a scandal involving patients dying at the hands of surgeons who believed that theory.