In today’s division-of-labor society, it is inevitable that some individuals will discover and act on information before (and better than) others do. Such differences are also the inevitable consequence of the fact that the human mind is individual by nature. Just as there’s no such thing as a “collective mind,” there is no such thing as “collective information.” To grasp information an individual must expend effort; he must either create the information or discover it. After he does this, he may well choose to trade it with others or give it away in some act of charity (just as he may do with his tangible assets). But he should not be obligated (nor compelled by law) to do these things. Morally, he doesn’t “owe” his knowledge to anyone. The primary moral obligation rests on others: they should be obliged to keep their hands off such assets and not destroy or steal them (or hire government to do so).
Contrary to the Marxist dogma preached by the SEC, “inside” information does not “belong” to the “public” — or to the government. If that were the case, we’d have public ownership of the means of production (socialism) — because in today’s “information economy,” information is a crucial means to production.
“Inside” information about any company — its trade secrets, strategies, etc — are assets that belong solely to shareholders (and to shareholding-executives too, if other shareholders approve of such a policy). Only a firm’s owners have the moral right to decide how their employees can use such information. Government-bureaucrats should have no say in the matter as no fraud is involved—and as long as a firm discloses its insider-information policy no fraud is involved.