Comment by renewiltord a year ago
It's like Hives in Too Like The Lightning. I do admit I like the idea of having a different set of laws in the same geographical space. There are some things that are like that: accredited investor, etc. And it would be good to broaden the amount of things where you can say "I'm an adult; if I lose, I lose" and then refuse it to people who could not possibly reasonably say that.
Same way we decided on the accredited investor thing or how we decide on informed consent. You can self-assert and lose protection to get freedom. And of course you must be literate etc. We don’t need to invent new things. We can just use the existing technology we have.
Whom decides what the requirements are re: the accredited investor thing analogue? The corporation? Because that sounds like reinventing feudalism.
Are you familiar with Rule 506(b) offerings? If so, then I don't understand why you'd ask the question; there seems like an obvious answer. If not, then perhaps there's just a gulf of understanding here that it will take a while to bridge, so it's unlikely this conversation will be useful to you.
How are Rule 506(b) offerings relevant in a post government world?
The point I’m trying to make here is that you’re assuming certain structures will outlive the governments that created the rules in the first place, which seems unlikely given the significant divergence between the goals of government and the goals of for-profit industry (in theory, at least).
For example: I wonder who will tell the folks with nuclear weapons what to do, and insist Rule 506(b) offerings that don’t benefit said folks be respected? Probably something lost in my gulf of misunderstanding. I sure hope so!
In this proposed world, whom decides what constitutes “reasonable”?