> Those "studies" are self serving. That is the political propaganda keeping you feeling safe in having your rights violated.

Ah, so you're the only source of truth that I can trust in this discussion, since no study can be trusted? Awesome.

Can you answer my question about at which point do you think "freedom to invest in an enterprise" should not be allowed? I'll quote my question again:

> Third of all, is it also a violation of your rights to not be able to fund companies in countries that are at war with your country (which I assume is the US)? Is it a violation of your rights to not be able to fund illegal activity? I'm just trying to gauge at which point does your view on "the inalienable right to invest in anything" stop short?

One of your key premises, that investing in startups is a key / good path to getting rich, is flawed. Investing in startups is notoriously NOT that stable of an investment vehicle. If you're a small-scale enough investor to not meet accreditation rules, why would you WANT to throw 10k at a startup?

You speak in terms of rights and that's one debate to have. But evaluating the material harm in this situation, the notion that this denies upward economic mobility in a significant way seems overstated.

> Secondly, you think its "fairly clear to [you]" that these ICOs are scams. I am sure some are, but I know for a fact that many are not. I am quite capable of telling the difference (as a blockchain engineer.)

The average Joe and Jane on Instagram/Twitter/FB can simply not tell if it's a scam or not what e.g. Paris Hilton is advertising.

Heck, I'm a sw dev too - and I have a hard time figuring out why some of the ICOs need their own token at all. Simple offer what you sell (e.g. legal services for a certain market) directly and let them pay as they wish. Absolutely no need for a blockchain to achieve things.

Where do your "fundamental rights" come from? Brought down on stone tablets? I mean, I like individual freedoms as much as the next person, but you can't just slap "fundamental" in front of something and then declare the debate over. The other side can just reply that societies have a fundamental right to protect themselves from societal harms at the expense of individuals.

People disagree about what rights people have and what rights governments have. Simply prefixing the word rights with a phrase like "innate," "fundamental," or "inalienable" to make it seem beyond debate is just sophistry.

> It's my right to apply my own discernment to what are good and what are bad investments.

Let's say, hypothetically, that someone is not as good as you at stock picking, and they make extremely bad investment choices, added and abetted by an army of "wolves of wall street" all selling penny stocks that "are guaranteed to go big".

Once they arrive at their 0% ROI at retirement stage, don't they rely then on a government-provided safety net for various survival needs? Shouldn't the government then have a say, or at least some interest, in decreasing the probability of such extremely bad choices?

lol a radical libertarian I see you are. You have every right to trust your own ideas, right, but calling every "studies" as self-serving is a bit too far. I'd say the right-wing studies and arguments for a completely free market are just as likely, if not more likely, to be totally self-serving and lacking in objective truths.