In a sense, money is just a technology a society uses for allocating its resources. So, yes, the society/government can regulate how you can spend your money as a little monkey-patch on its tech.
Despite how much you dislike it, it seems that the government can in fact decide what you do with your money. For example, hiring an assassin is illegal. I'm sure we'd all agree that banning conspiracy to murder is not a violation of your rights. Thus your "freedom" to spend your money according to your wishes is limited by the safety of other citizens, with as loose a definition for "safety" as we like.
Nobody here believes you should "know your place", but the more you learn about the world and business, the more you see just how hard this shit really is.
The downvotes aren't out of classism, but because your posts are not constructive to the discussion. They articulate a philosophical viewpoint and offer no real information of the sort I described earlier.
HN is not your soapbox.
"non-rich" people could be interested in contributing money to endeavors they deem worthwhile. Current rules prevent most from contributing to such endeavors, however.
But that aside: do you honestly think that the opportunity to invest in small "private" companies is likely to make non-rich people rich? I don't think so. Angel investing is a notorious trap for flush cashed-out startup people, because it's hard to make angel portfolios work. And those are people with relatively huge financial resources to draw on!
Normal people have many more liabilities than just lack of accreditation in competing with rich people in venture capital.