Yes, and for a simple reason is what the other side will tell you. They're going to say, no, no, no. Public officials having the ability to trade individual stocks results in corruption. It results in lobbying. It results in lots of terrible things. But that proves there might be some degree of harm. It does not prove that there is a moral duty or there is a moral duty. Hell, it doesn't even prove that it's morally legitimate to do so. And this is the premise behind anything that we choose to ban or not to ban. In order to prove that the government ought to restrict people's choices, it is not enough for them to prove that there is indirect harm. They also have to prove direct harm is occurring. And this is the premise behind any restriction of choice. The fact that the government prevents me from punching others is because that causes direct harm. The fact that the government lets me take a job that I want, even if that means that somebody else might not be able to take that job, is indirect harm that the government would not punish. Similarly, public officials being able to trade individual stocks might have an indirect harm. It does not, however, have a direct harm. It would thus be illegitimate for the government to restrict it.

I want to be clear. I gave you a very simple and logically sound moral argument in my first speech. The moral argument was, in case we are to restrict public officials' choice, we can only do so when there is a direct causation of harm. However, the other side has not proven there's a direct causation of harm. The respond with a series of rhetoric that is distant from any logical semblance by just saying, no, no, no. We're able to reduce the appearance of corruption. Okay. We're not even saying that we disagree that's a problem. We're saying there's a better fix. What is this better fix? I hear you ask. This better fix is we release this information publicly. If public officials who are held accountable by literally being it possible to vote them out, realize. God damn, people don't like this. It'll mean I voted out on my next term. It'll mean my party is hurt. Then they have an incentive to not trade or to be careful about what stocks they're trading in or not to insider trade. If anything, that becomes a central part of elections. That's still not a moral argument to prevent them altogether and to place a blanket ban. If anything, the discourse that stems from this is better because it holds public officials accountable better than the other side could ever hope to do in their wildest fantasies.

One, they give you a bunch of rhetoric about how it's a core harm. It's a core fucking indirect harm. The logical chain of how that harm is caused is as a consequence of lobbying. Then they buy public stocks, then the insider trade, then they influence decisions. And that has potential harm changes to policy. And those changes to policy potentially cause somebody harm. And that harm can be somehow tied back. That's indirect. Deaf-fuck-definitionally fucking indirect. Do not fucking bullshit me. Other than that, I gave you mechanisms on how we actually improve discourse-respond.