We all agree that public officials shouldn't use their positions for personal profit. That common ground is solid. But the question is whether a flat ban on trading individual stocks is the right tool, and I don't think it is. Here's my framework: we should weigh the actual conflict risk against the cost of the rule. A ban treats every stock trade as inherently corrupt, which just isn't true. A senator buying shares in a local bank they have no oversight over isn't the same as one trading defense stocks while on the armed services committee. Instead of banning everything, we should target the real problem: trading based on nonpublic information. Stronger disclosure, mandatory holding periods, and blind trusts for officials with direct policy conflicts would address the actual ethics concerns without turning every public servant into a passive investor. It keeps good people in government and respects their financial autonomy while still policing the bad behavior. That's a more precise, fair solution than a blunt ban.

[No submission - Time expired]