Yes, thanks SEC for preventing free people from entering into voluntary transactions.
Charles Ponzi didn't coerce anyone.
419 scammers depend on your voluntary stupidity.
Telemarketers don't hold a gun to your head.
Allowing free people to enter into whatever voluntary transactions they would like is basically the definition of anarchism. It's surprising to see people advocating for anarchism on HN this often, especially in obscured fashions like this rather than explicitly. Anarchy was never the vision for our society and is not generally seen as a desirable end goal.
[Edited for clarity.]
(But a minarchist also includes fraud in prohibited transactions, which does take out some of these ICOs.)
According to who? There are two or three of us who absolutely see anarchy as a desirable end goal. In the case of a lot of hackers, it's more specifically "anarcho-capitalism" or "voluntaryism" as opposed to what a lot of people call anarchy (what I'd probably call left-anarchism or socialist anarchism). But anarchy of a sort nonetheless.
> According to who? There are two or three of us who absolutely see anarchy as a desirable end goal
2-3 people? What claim are you even contesting? I said it's not generally seen as desirable, not that there exists nobody on this planet who sees it as desirable. Are you somehow under the the US population is generally anarchist?
I think "voluntary" should mean that both parties know what this transaction would realistically mean for both of them and the actual risks involved. When you are being scammed (by many of the ICOs (not all of them)) - that does not sound like a voluntary transaction to me.