> Lots of awful laws were "the law of the land" for much longer. I don't think it's as awful as you make it out to be. I think the situation before it was pas

> Lots of awful laws were "the law of the land" for much longer. I don't think it's as awful as you make it out to be. I think the situation before it was passed into law was far, far worse for the prosperity of individuals than it has ever been after. But, that's just, you know, my opinion. > You implied irrationality among non-accredited investors, with your question, "how can you make a rational decision...?" Well, non-millionaires can be just as rational as millionaires, within these domains. No, I didn't, as I assume you're familiar with securities law, I would presume that you could see that I was contrasting registered securities with required disclosures, and unregistered securities with little or no disclosure. Perhaps I should've phrased the question instead as "How can you make a good decision when the other party is intentionally hiding relevant information from you?" > If compromise is required, I'd replace the means test with a means-oblivious competence-evaluation: That sounds awfully complex to codify. Who gets to write the questions? What happens when the subject is not previously coded up into a test? Endless questions. What this all really boils down, what I'm getting from this, is that you feel that you're smarter than the average bear, and you feel that the rules are holding you back from really succeeding, so let's make some rules that you'll pass. That's not intended as a personal insult, that's just how it comes across. > If even more compromise to paternalism is required, private-security investments could be subject to a proportion-of-net-worth test. For example, perhaps only 1/2 to 1/3 of net-worth could be placed in such securities. Or, only an amount that's less that that already saved in tax-advantaged retirement accounts (IRAs/501ks/etc). Actually, that makes a lot more sense than anything else you've come up with, and more akin to my reading of the reasoning behind the means test. It has nothing to do with any one individual, but instead to avoid massive culling of the fortunes of the middle class at once and causing social unrest. If its more difficult for the masses to invest primarily in high risk investments that more often fail than succeed, then they will likely invest in lower-risk, or at least more well codified risk, which is more likely to achieve a more stable economy and reduce the risk of public upheaval. We have a lot of history in the unregulated investment markets to draw from in painting a picture of the potential future. Your assumption that people have more information now, readily available to them about the quality of investments with little or no disclosure is one I'd call into question. People in the 'teens certainly felt they had a lot more information about the quality of investments with little or no disclosure than they did in the early 1800's. But, we have a stark difference of opinion. I never felt that the accredited investor test was holding me back from succeeding and making good investments. In fact, I've never found a rule that was really holding me back from succeeding, but that's just me, I guess.