1) does spaceX have to recognize the authority of any national oversight body to decide to launch people into space for long duration flight to Mars, or is this actually outside the putatuve body's control?
2) does anyone expect the national regulatory body to approve this? I don't for two reasons: The jurisdictional issues around "property" in space are fraught and a silent compact around "I claim this land" exists, which right now is just silly after dinner blovating but if Musk did launch and land, would not be (much as the whole issue around Antarctica is not a problem, right up until it is) And the second one: Permissive society doesn't mean you can do things just because you want to. Sometimes, you have to obey rules, no matter how rich you are, and flight (and space) is one of those places which is bound by rules. Passengers are different to crew. Even Crew are bound by duty of care, Passengers doubly so. Not that the warsaw convention on lost luggage applies, but you can't just put up a shingle and say "we're good to go" in space.
Mike Hughes, who launched and died in a self-made rocket, the guy who did the balloon thing, Evel Knievl, they're all in a grey area of duty of care (every lawyer within 1000km just sat up and felt a disturbance in the force because I'm not one, and I used a term of art) because there probably was a competent regulatory body somewhere who could (and maybe even did) say "don't do that"
Taking money from people to go to Mars, with a significantly non-zero risk of dying. How different is that to putting rich millionaires in a submersible with a game player control to go down to the Titanic? (Is there a lawsuit in the offing?)
Taking money from people on a future promise to go to Mars, thats a financial regulatory issue. I'd say the FTC is cool with people doing it, they're cool with Cryonic suspension too even though nobody in the world I inhabit thinks there is buckleys chance of the corpsicle coming back.