If I want to spend $100,000 on ephemeral virtual items in a video game that might never actually be released, that's my problem, not the government's. I'm the one that earned the money, so I'm the one that decides how to spend it. It's totally inappropriate for the government to insert itself between two informed and consenting parties.

A paternalist government is not compatible with a free society.

The reason we have "paternalistic" organizations like the FTC and SEC is because many parties make informed, consenting agreements, and don't obligate them. How are you going to enforce your $100k agreement without a "paternalistic" organization?

Consumer rights and protections are what creates scalable trade by enabling trust in our society.

Laws that arm people with more information are great. I'm a big fan. I'm not a fan of laws that prohibit certain contracts no matter how informed both parties are. It's sometimes necessary when there's a huge asymmetry in power, like in landlord-tenant relationships and in standard-form contracts that waive all liability (interestingly, this is something courts have recognized as a matter of common law, even in the absence of legislative protections). I don't think video game pre-orders, in-game purchases, and Kickstarter pledges by informed adults should one of the exceptions.

As for who's going to enforce my $100k agreement, the same people that enforce any other contract, the courts.

Except, you know slavery is illegal even if both parties are informed adults who could agree to such a contract. Same for indentured servitude, or selling organs. And these are just the most obvious examples.

There is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere in terms of what can and cannot be allowed in contracts, the question is where to draw it. The other obvious point is whether both parties are acting in good faith, which is why there are laws about fraud on the books (even if they aren't always enforced for some financial industries).

> Civil court enforcement

You had just said it's not appropriate for governments to insert itself between two informed, consenting parties, because it is paternalistic and not part of a free society.

Also what does market efficiency have to do with anything? There are always going to be asymmetrical distributions of power because information is asymmetrical.

Courts enforce consensual contracts between two people. That's a basic function of government and doesn't restrict your rights, except that you must abide by your word. What this discussion is about is legal constraints on the contents of those contracts.

A lot of what the SEC and FTC do is require appropriate information disclosure to protect consumers from deception. The SEC requires financial disclosures, auditing, etc. In the FTC's own words: "Federal Trade Commission has a broad mandate to protect consumers from fraud and deception in the marketplace". The idea is to make sure people have the information that they need to make informed decisions. Not to tell them what decisions they are and are not allowed to make once they have that information.

Which is still paternalistic intervention by the government as you defined it. Don't go no-true-scotsman on me by trying to redefine "true" intervention.

And to the contrary, both the SEC and the FTC dictate what types of transactions take place in respective domains - unless you're arguing that the prevention of MLMs and ponzi schemes infringes on your freedoms.

Actually, a free society is impossible without a paternalistic government. The government does a lot of work to craft the free and open society we all enjoy, and enforce certain norms of acceptable behavior; primarily to prevent abuse and exploitation in one sided asymmetric power relationships. Like the relationship between a consumer and a team of trained psychologists using everything they know about the human brain to maliciously manipulate people with mental illnesses into parting with their money against their best interests.

There is at least an implied contract on Kickstarter. They say as much in their TOS:

https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use#section4

Star Citizen isn't through Kickstarter, though. At this point it's through themselves.

Has this ever been held as legally binding in civil court?