I'd agree with this. Although in the US there was recently added another exemption to become an accredited investor: passing a knowledge test. What interested

I'd agree with this. Although in the US there was recently added another exemption to become an accredited investor: passing a knowledge test. What interested me was: republicans are in support of removing accredited investor status making your same argument that it bars the masses from lucrative investments, while democrats fought allowing a test to qualify investors for accredited status, arguing that the masses would expose themselves to too much risk. Is this a personal liberty vs authoritarian take? Is this a personal liberty vs empathetic (though paternalistic) take? Is this a quiet "let's exploit investors" vs "prevent investor exploitation" take? For some reason their positions have me stumped.