We don't use legal mechanisms to protect citizens from an endless myriad of things, many which are much more dangerous than investing in private startups. This is really a way to keep the proles out of the good investments. It's infuriating and unjust that the wealthy have more rights.
> It's infuriating and unjust that the wealthy have more rights.
No they don't have more rights. There is nothing preventing you from creating your own private company and sell equities only to poor people.
It's like people having a party and not inviting you. You can be frustrated about it, but please don't start whining about them violating your rights or anything. Just as people have the right not to invite you to their daughter's birthday party, they have the right not to do business with you.
Doing things in private association is a right everybody has, regardless of wealth.
> There is nothing preventing you from creating your own private company and sell equities only to poor people.
That's not actually true, which is what the people upthread were referring too. It's not that companies simply don't elect to sell equity to poor people, they aren't actually allowed to in most circumstances.
Being an Accredited Investor (in the US) is 1Mil in net worth not including the value of your primary house. Indeed that seems to exclude most "poor people" I know
Being an Accredited Investor in the US involves stating that on a form. If you badly want to buy these shares, and they're available to buy, then from experience bypassing that is trivial.
The bigger challenge is that most private companies you've heard of won't even consider taking your money unless you can put in a lot more than any poor person would realistically be able to.
