The strongest argument against a ban is that it treats a symptom while ignoring the disease. Insider trading is illegal because of the information advantage, not because someone holds stock. Banning all individual stock trades for public officials is like banning all cars because some people speed. It punishes the honest majority and creates a false sense of security. Corruption doesn't disappear when you outlaw stock ownership; it just moves into opaque trusts, family members, or crypto and real estate. And from a rights perspective, public officials don't surrender their financial autonomy when they take office. We ask them to disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when necessary, which is both reasonable and enforceable. A blanket ban is lazy policy, not ethical policy. It fails the utilitarian test because it hurts innocent people without actually reducing wrongdoing. And it's not fair—that matters. So I'd say no, we shouldn't ban. We should enforce rules that already exist.

Imagine a small-town mayor who owns three shares of the local bank because her parents gave it to her as a graduation gift. She has no inside information, no committee seat, no say in banking policy. A ban says she's corrupt by default. That's not ethics, that's guilt by association. I hear the argument that even the appearance of conflict matters, and there's something to that. But the better answer is disclosure and recusal, not stripping away financial autonomy. A blanket ban fails the utilitarian test: it burdens thousands of honest officials to catch a handful of bad actors, and bad actors will just hide stock in trusts or crypto. That's just shifting the problem. And deontologically, it treats people as means, not ends. We don't ban all driving because some people speed. We enforce the laws and punish the violators. Is it right to punish everyone for what a few might do? I don't think so. The real fix is stronger enforcement, not overreach.

[No submission - Time expired]