[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Wait- first they were Communists, then Fascists, then Marxists, THEN Socialists...

Which is it?

They come in all those flavors, and others. And all of those flavors are lumped into a single, convenient category (centralists) that can be readily identified by their willingness to surrender the freedoms of others to pursue their own ideals or welfare, or get something for "free"
They can often be readily identified by their complete disregard for empyrical evidence and willingness to believe hopelessly optimistic versions of history that support their beliefs, if they know anything about it at all.
The most dangerous types are the "Academic Centralist" and the "Idiot Centralist"
The academic centralist has a vast arsenal of university schooling that makes him feel superior. He can be identified by his complete lack of touch with reality in almost every sense of the word. Statements common to an Academic Centralist would include things like "we should all drive electric cars" or "The (<variable> industry) needs more regulation"
Obviously these people have yet to experience enough of real life to realize that they are supporting a monopoly with legislative power, which is infinitely more dangerous than an industry monopoly, assuming that the state has very limited power. They don't even know that they are supporters of Plutocracy, in many cases. And if they do know it, they are even more dangerous.

The "Idiot Centralist" is just some peon who actually believes that some of other peoples money can, and should, be given to him. In addition to the failings of the Academic Socialist, his complete and utter lack of understanding beyond what is spoon-fed to him by mass media is appalling. This type can be easily identified by their complete failure to responsibly plan their lives and constant demand for compensation. They are weak, individually, but in great, great, numbers they can pose a real threat, because some of them actually vote, and many more of them are very vocal about their opinions, though they can rarely be bothered to do anything about it.

One last category I will mention is the "Compassionate Centralist". Not as dangerous as the aforementioned, but still a threat to personal liberty. These people believe that ignorance, suffering, and death exsist in the world because those of us that don't live in disease and famine-ridden hellholes are either unaware of these events or don't care. In many cases, they honestly believe that they and like-minded indiviuals are the only ones who know about and are fighting for their cause.
Reasoning and logic bounce off them like Nerf arrows. They have either never heard of the term "incentive" or simply do not understand it. They think that economics is a zero-sum game and that the world's limited wealth should be divided more equally. They often contribute to charitable efforts, which they should be commended for, but they also seek to lobby legislation that forces others to give as well. A surefire test is to tell the suspected individual that foreign aid to impoverished African countries creates more problems than it solves, because it exacerbates the population crisis there. If they start blabbing about humanitarian efforts or "the children", you've got yourself a Compassionate Centralist.

Centralists come in many more types than just these, of course, but collectively, they can be generally identified by their belief that they know what is best for others.

On the flip-side, individualists (catch-all term, again) take responsibility for themselves, and encourage others to do the same, even if it is to that person's detriment. Individualists are often charitable, because they tend to do well. They have personal initiative and refuse to be "victimized". They can be identified by their attempts to get a solid grip on their own affairs, and their lack of whining about being treated unfairly.
Of course, they can be dangerous as well, especially if given excessive legislative power, as they tend to take advantage of it.

Any type of person is liable to take advantage of power if it is given to them. Monopolistic power is the most dangerous. There is a reason that the saying "Power Corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." has endured.
What we need is a government that is strictly regulated by harsh Constitutional authority, enforced by an armed populace that is very protective of their freedoms. We had a system like that once, but the Federalists crushed it in the Civil War.
Perhaps it is time to reassert the authority of the American people.