[AlexandrB]

It'll still be an uneven playing field if you're able to invest in early-stage companies. Now it will just be populated with well-marketed stocks for worthless companies that the rich will use to extract money from the gullible.

With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to see how you would have made a killing on Uber. But what you're not seeing the money you might have lost on Theranos, or Juicero, or WeWork, or any number of other hyped-up but ultimately worthless companies.

[errantmind]

The issue is, the gullible cannot be specifically identified so blanket laws are put in place that affect (almost) everyone. I'd rather have freedom.

[jimkleiber]

I think it's a hard problem to solve. Take a less controversial one perhaps: speed limits. The same aspect could be applied, where it's hard to specifically identify the people who drive poorly at high speeds, so blanket laws are created to limit speeds. Ideally, yes, I'd rather have freedom because I believe that I personally drive well at high speeds, however, there are some people who I wish didn't have the permission to drive at high speeds.

Maybe this analogy doesn't seem so applicable to you as it seems to more directly impact other people than one's permission to risk money on a stock, however, I'd argue that decision impacts family members and communities more than apparent at first.

[errantmind]

Your argument could be applied to anything you don't like. I'm sure free speech sometimes has a negative impact on family members and communities, that doesn't mean it should be limited outside where it presents a clear and present danger to others.

As you acknowledge, the same goes for your speed limit example. It directly affects others and it could be argued it is necessary to protect their safety. Even though I acknowledge that, I don't think speed limits save lives over longer periods of time and could be removed. There would likely be a spike in accidents shortly after the transition but would normalize after. Having lived in several countries around the world, some with de facto no speed limits, people just avoided the left lane where the super fast people drove. I didn't see accidents everywhere.

[jimkleiber]

> That doesn't mean it should be limited outside where it presents a clear and present danger to others.

But isn't that specifically the challenge, in defining what's a "clear and present danger to others?"

> There would likely be a spike in accidents shortly after the transition but would normalize after.

I agree that many things do normalize over time. We create informal rules on how to interact, embedded within morals, ethics, or just expectations of how one should behave in a society. I also think sometimes rules don't informally coalesce, that we don't always resolve conflict without outside guidance and more formal negotiation.

> Having lived in several countries around the world, some with de facto no speed limits, people just avoided the left lane where the super fast people drove.

From my (cursory) understanding of at least German law, while there may not be a speed limit on some roads, those roads often have very strict laws about passing on the right, and one might get their licensed removed for doing so.

[ngc248]

All these laws have come about because they issues would have become so prevalent that instead of just affecting individual, they would have started affecting society at large.

You may be a conscientious person and take responsibility for outcomes which arise out of your "freedom". But not everyone would take responsibility and that is why these laws are there.