Similarly, I do not want the government to have certain powers. But I would happily award myself these powers if I were in charge, to be honest. I would never campaign for that, of course.

This brings me to my argument against eugenics: I think in the current world, it would have horrible effects. It would increase inequality, and create suffering. But that is not a neccessity. In another society, some elements of eugenics could be useful (to be clear: I'm not talking about deciding who can procreate and not, but for example preventing heritable diseases). The thing is, we can't agree on what this better society would look like. I of course believe that would be when I was in charge, but you'd probably disagree :-).

Genetic engineering of offspring is a very different postulate to eugenics though - eugenics is trying to control people's reproductive choice towards an outcome desired by an external party, whereas genetic engineering would be parents trying to get desirable traits for their offspring.

Technically I already did this when I had my first child: me and my wife got genetically tested for possible hereditary overlaps, as well as got as many screenings as were available when the child was developing.

If those tests had shown risk factors, we would have picked IVF or other options to specifically knock out those traits from being passed on. If the technology to select a bunch of genes in my child that favored intelligence, or lower risks of lifestyle disease were available, you bet I would've paid a fair amount of money to get that done too.

Where by "we" I mean the plutocrats who make decisions about how each of us lives now, the Peter Thiels, the Vladimir Putins, the Xis, the Bill Gateses, the Kochs, the Morgans, the Stanleys, the Goldmans and the Sachses.