>>The government declares which investors are savvy or not ("accreditation" based on the rules) only partly because they believe certain people are unqualified

>>The government declares which investors are savvy or not ("accreditation" based on the rules) only partly because they believe certain people are unqualified to make certain investment decisions based on knowledge. You're just rewording what I said. What you're promoting is based on a principle that is roundly rejected when applied in every other sphere of life. >>As a reminder, this is one of the few responsibilities the government actually has in any society, even the most libertarian. Protecting people from their own bad judgement is not a responsibility that the government has in a free (libertarian) society. That's why we let people read whatever literature they want, no matter how toxic the ideas it promotes, and to eat as much as they want, exercise as little as they want, engage in as much unprotected sex as they want, and drink and smoke as much they want. When it comes to crime, the government does have a role in protecting people, but the way it traditionally protects them is by intervening when someone reports a crime in progress, or punishing individuals after they've committed a crime, to create a deterrent effect, not by prohibiting people from venturing into dangerous areas of the city, or prohibiting certain types of relationships that are more likely to lead to criminal incidents. Preemptive restrictions applied to innocent people is not how crime is addressed in a free society.