An official might make a decision that affects a company while simultaneously owning shares in it. They may be forced to choose between the public interest and their own financial gain, even if they didn't intend to abuse their position. The public may question the decision even if no actual corruption occurs. An official's prior knowledge of undisclosed government decisions makes individual trading extremely sensitive.

You're confusing financial independence with the right to hold an investment that creates a conflict of interest. No one is saying that an official should be barred from investing; they can invest in index funds or diversified assets. But why should they retain the right to buy and sell shares of companies that might be directly affected by their decisions? Furthermore, saying that the problem is "disclosure and enforcement" doesn't solve the problem. Disclosure tells us about the conflict of interest, but it doesn't eliminate it. And recusal rules don't address every situation either. What if a government decision affects an entire sector or dozens of companies in which the official owns shares? Are they supposed to recuse themselves from every important economic decision? As for your claim that the ban "treats every official as a criminal," that's a fallacy. The preventative rule doesn't assume individual corruption; it prevents conflicts of interest even if the official is perfectly honest. We don't wear seatbelts because every driver is a criminal or reckless, but because a good system doesn't rely solely on good faith. Most importantly, you're saying the ban "solves nothing," when in fact it solves a very specific problem: it prevents an official from being both the decision-maker and the direct financial beneficiary of that decision. Blind trusts and index funds are alternatives that allow an executive to invest without being tied to a specific company. If you oppose the ban, you must demonstrate something more compelling than simply that some people might dislike it. You must explain why an executive should specifically retain the right to own and trade individual shares that could be affected by their decisions, when alternative investment options exist that don't create the same conflict. Otherwise, you haven't addressed the core argument but rather an exaggerated version of it.

You still haven't addressed the core of the argument. Instead, you've shifted the focus from the existence of a conflict of interest to whether we can detect and penalize it. These are two different things. You say that an official can simply abstain from voting on matters concerning a company in which they own shares. But what if the decision involves an entire sector, or tax policy, interest rates, government subsidies, or regulations affecting hundreds of companies? Should the official be barred from participating in every significant economic decision because their portfolio is affected? If so, then the very act of recusal becomes an obstacle to their job. As for your claim that "disclosure and recusal rules address the problem," disclosure doesn't eliminate conflicts of interest; it merely reveals them. Recusal addresses specific cases, but not those where the impact of a decision is broad or indirect. Why maintain the root of the problem when it can be easily eliminated through diversified investments that aren't dependent on any single company? Your assertion that prohibitions don't prevent people from being suspicious because they can't read the official's mind is irrelevant. The goal isn't to make people blindly trust the official, but to eliminate any objective reason for doubt in the first place. A good system doesn't say, "Trust his integrity," but rather minimizes situations where his personal interests might conflict with his public duty. You say that insider trading is inherently illegal. This also doesn't address the argument, because the issue isn't simply, "Did the official commit a crime?" but rather, "Should a decision-maker be allowed to have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the decisions he participates in making?" The act can be legal and still constitute a conflict of interest. Finally, you say that the ban "punishes talented and honest people." Why? Does prohibiting individual stocks mean prohibiting investment? No. An official can invest in index funds, diversified assets, or arrange his assets independently of his decisions. So your argument presents a false choice: either allow individual stocks or lose financial independence. On the contrary: if there is a way to preserve the financial independence of officials and decouple their wealth from companies over which they may make decisions, why insist on maintaining the option that most evokes conflicts of interest? If you oppose the ban, demonstrate precisely why officials should retain the right to own and trade individual shares that could be affected by their decisions, when alternative investments exist that do not create the same problem. Arguing that officials are not criminals or that disclosure already exists does not prove that the current system is the best; it merely demonstrates that mechanisms exist to address the problem after it has occurred.