5 ms·
The reality is that it is impossible for everyone to be an expert in everything. At some point, certain fields, medicine and finance for example, become so comp
by InvisibleCities 11y ago
The reality is that it is impossible for everyone to be an expert in everything. At some point, certain fields, medicine and finance for example, become so complex that it is impossible for a lay-person to make an informed decision. Historically, when lay-people are given the freedom to "use their money however they want" within these fields, hucksters and frauds have quite successfully conned them because it is impossible for a lay-person to tell the difference between a legitimate opportunity and a scam; they don't have the expertise, experience, and even the time to perform the due-diligence needed to make an informed decision. While these regulations are certainly a blunt instrument, and they do prevent a very small segment of the lay-population who could make an informed decision from doing so, the alternative is far worse.
- Zikes 11y agoHaving money doesn't automatically make someone an expert in all of those fields, either, but that seems to be the only actual requirement to become "accredited".
- tptacek 11y agoIt doesn't make them an expert, but it does reduce the likelihood that the losses they take on a given investment are likely to impact their retirement.
- Rat_King 11y agoThis poster is right, people are not qualified to use their money freely. Their freedom must be restricted because of our beliefs.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jsprogrammer 11y agoTaken as whole, this explanation doesn't make complete sense. States routinely run opportunities/scams that target the "lay population". Why don't these regulations address actual harm, rather than hypothetical harm?
- sanderjd 11y agoI think they did address actual harm. It is only hypothetical now because it has already been addressed. States do routinely "run opportunities/scams" that also likely do actual harm (assuming you're referring to lotteries here). They probably shouldn't do that. But that they do doesn't suggest that they have just given up all their justification to prevent other harm through regulation.