If you do try to flesh out an idea like this, I've got some suggestions. They're my opinion only of course. 1) Be relentlessly practical. No "magic happens her

If you do try to flesh out an idea like this, I've got some suggestions. They're my opinion only of course. 1) Be relentlessly practical. No "magic happens here" utopian vaporware bullshit. 2) Be historically practical. Don't presuppose the existence of a purely volitional state from which all initiation of force or fraud has been outlawed, or other such bits of moral futurism. We are simply nowhere near such things. Grapple with political realities. We still live in a world that is absolutely ruled by force and arbitrary authority. If we want to get beyond that, we have to chart a practical course toward the betterment of the human condition that begins where we are now and takes concrete understandable steps. 3) Put forward a vision, but also talk about baby steps -- about things we might do here and now to evolve toward a condition like this without requiring the whole kabang to be sold at once. 4) I'd suggest dealing with the critics -- and there will be shitloads of them from every quarter of the political landscape -- by turning sanctimonious moral arguments around. A conservative is implicitly advocating the maintenance of the present condition and its state of injustice and suffering, etc. A liberal is inconsistent -- claiming to advocate progress while opposing its concrete methods. Greens (of the "religious" sort) have simply made a god out of fate -- the naturalistic fallacy. 5) One specific thing you'll get is the Hitler comparison. Anyone who advocates going beyond the human condition in some deep or fundamental way gets compared to Hitler. In addition to pointing it out as dishonest hyperbole, it's important to point out that Hitlerian eugenics is the opposite of this. It's curing the disease by killing the patient... the very opposite of making the means of human betterment more universally available.