Bob the billionaire.

[cromwell]

I assume there are people alive to think like this.

Well how different is it from your scenario.

[Nalaar]

Well how far can you go with all this?

Given that despite all the present narrative it's the human population levels that are the problem.

Is there a reason that the more developed nations shouldn't decide amongst themselves that they've got a handle on birth levels so the undeveloped are a drain on the world and a threat to humanities future so should be disposed of.

I assume there are people alive to think like this.

[cromwell]

Well how far can you go with all this?

Given that despite all the present narrative it's the human population levels that are the problem.

Is there a reason that the more developed nations shouldn't decide amongst themselves that they've got a handle on birth levels so the undeveloped are a drain on the world and a threat to humanities future so should be disposed of.

[Nalaar]

Its been remarked on before that this poster is deliberately trying to provoke a response with threads like this

Taking the bait, wouldn't it make a change if, just for fecking once, the evil subject of this woke shite was something other than a white guy.

Of course, that won't have occurred to him, because as we all know all "racistz" is white, innit?

Yes. I am quite deliberately trying to provoke responses, given this is an Internet forum. 

The races of the people involved can be in whatever you want them to be, it doesn't matter. 

[cromwell]

Its been remarked on before that this poster is deliberately trying to provoke a response with threads like this

Taking the bait, wouldn't it make a change if, just for fecking once, the evil subject of this woke shite was something other than a white guy.

Of course, that won't have occurred to him, because as we all know all "racistz" is white, innit?

Well we got round to cannibalism and he reckoned it ok if both parties agreed,happily the reality and German bloke who went through with that scenario is in prison for a long time.

[DeppityDawg]

You think it should be legal?

Sorry Nalaar I think you've lost all moral reasoning.

How about the same type of scenario but you agree the money go to your family and you be euthanised? 

Its been remarked on before that this poster is deliberately trying to provoke a response with threads like this

Taking the bait, wouldn't it make a change if, just for fecking once, the evil subject of this woke shite was something other than a white guy.

Of course, that won't have occurred to him, because as we all know all "racistz" is white, innit?

[Nalaar]

Nalaar - with the greatest respect this is ridiculous. All you are trying to do is justify something that I feel you know already is a non starter. You started off with Bob being rich enough to pay for sterilisation - perhaps he was the surgeon and got off on it I don't know - plus life changing money for most. Then you throw it to the forum to decide if it should be legal. You insist that both parties would agree, it would be a private matter, now they would be means tested to make sure that there was no coercion. What about Bob? What is his motive? Do you have any idea? Is he going to see a psychologist too? As a racist presumably he aims for fewer people of that ethnicity in his country, town, village, street. The 'discussion' seems to have come to an end some posts back. I would add that for me no matter how Bob tries to justify his degrading use of his wealth I would hope that he would end up with a substantial time in jail or even better he be thrown to the wives who wanted more children and let him face his deserved fate. I can't give it any more time I'm afraid. Just one thing if you know Bob then do tell him to give his money to a deserving charity.

Thanks for your replies, t00ts.

[T00ts]

I know people who think that having to work to earn money is coercive, so yes an argument for coercion can be made, but I don't think it stands up as a strong argument.
Bob makes the advert, anyone who wants to apply is free to do so.

I could certainly imagine adding means testing to the vetting process, to ensure only people earning the national average wage or above are eligible for sterilization if you think that helps reduce the coercive aspect.

Nalaar - with the greatest respect this is ridiculous. All you are trying to do is justify something that I feel you know already is a non starter. You started off with Bob being rich enough to pay for sterilisation - perhaps he was the surgeon and got off on it I don't know - plus life changing money for most. Then you throw it to the forum to decide if it should be legal. You insist that both parties would agree, it would be a private matter, now they would be means tested to make sure that there was no coercion. What about Bob? What is his motive? Do you have any idea? Is he going to see a psychologist too? As a racist presumably he aims for fewer people of that ethnicity in his country, town, village, street. The 'discussion' seems to have come to an end some posts back. I would add that for me no matter how Bob tries to justify his degrading use of his wealth I would hope that he would end up with a substantial time in jail or even better he be thrown to the wives who wanted more children and let him face his deserved fate. I can't give it any more time I'm afraid. Just one thing if you know Bob then do tell him to give his money to a deserving charity.

[Barry]

Wouldn't this be better titled "Rob the billionaire?" 
And no, I'm not going to seriously engage with this. 

[Nalaar]

Is it volunteering in the true sense of the word? Isn't it more like incitement/coercion? There is a bit of arm twisting here surely. I don't think you can simplify this question down to a simple yes/no answer or if it should be legal or not. You have to include motive on all parts, the draw of the incentive. Should it be legal? Part of the role of law and legislators is the protection of society thus the answer should be that it is illegal as well as a-moral practise.

I know people who think that having to work to earn money is coercive, so yes an argument for coercion can be made, but I don't think it stands up as a strong argument.
Bob makes the advert, anyone who wants to apply is free to do so.

I could certainly imagine adding means testing to the vetting process, to ensure only people earning the national average wage or above are eligible for sterilization if you think that helps reduce the coercive aspect.

[T00ts]

Would you hold Bob only responsible for the "cleansing", or would you also hold the persons volunteering to be sterilised responsible?

Is it volunteering in the true sense of the word? Isn't it more like incitement/coercion? There is a bit of arm twisting here surely. I don't think you can simplify this question down to a simple yes/no answer or if it should be legal or not. You have to include motive on all parts, the draw of the incentive. Should it be legal? Part of the role of law and legislators is the protection of society thus the answer should be that it is illegal as well as a-moral practise.

[cromwell]

A society can have laws and you can agree or disagree with the laws.
The question in the OP is what you would want a societies laws to be regarding the scenario.

I think it quite clear that be a no to your scenario.

[Nalaar]

But surely laws are simply the socially agreed moral determination of a society? Bob is a racist which in itself is not against the law as it stands as far as I know, but to act upon it in the way described should certainly be against the law. It smacks of Nazi cleansing.

Would you hold Bob only responsible for the "cleansing", or would you also hold the persons volunteering to be sterilised responsible?

[Nalaar]

I've had all this before with someone else,if a society does not have morals and laws then it isn't a society but the law of the jungle and not worth having.

A society can have laws and you can agree or disagree with the laws. 
The question in the OP is what you would want a societies laws to be regarding the scenario.

[T00ts]

Morality is baked into the original question - Specifically should a moral objection to the scenario in the OP be enforced with law.

But surely laws are simply the socially agreed moral determination of a society? Bob is a racist which in itself is not against the law as it stands as far as I know, but to act upon it in the way described should certainly be against the law. It smacks of Nazi cleansing.