"Consider these ideas:
"1 People who buy shares should be forbidden from selling them for five years.
"2 Execs paid with share options should be prevented from vesting them for five years from the award date.
"3 Everybody in the company should be paid with the same share option deal.
"4 Public companies should go private to escape activist investor hell."
Let's consider these in order.
1. Sure, this stops the roller-coaster ride that is the modern stock market, but it also makes getting investment more difficult, because it means you can only access the people willing to hold for the long term, come what may. And that means the pension funds won't buy your stock because they will lack the flexibility to unbuy it when they need to. And the more prudent investors will only invest in sure things because they will be locked in for five years. No, this is a bad idea.
2. (Pedantry) Execs themselves cannot *vest* stock options. In the context of stock options, vesting refers to the process where, usually slice-by-slice, the options become eligible to be *exercised* (that is, eligible to be used to buy (or, in the more general case that isn't applicable here, buy/sell) the relevant shares). Five years might be a bit much for the first slice to vest, but for normal employee stock options, it's common to have to wait at least a year, so I'll put this on in the "open for debate over details" category.
3. I hope you don't mean that literally as it is written, that all employees get N options to buy at price X (variations on X subject to e.g. date of grant and its effect on the opening share price), with N and X being the same for everyone who gets a grant on a particular date - but I suspect that you do indeed mean that. N*X is likely to be small, then. Worth investigating but I suspect this is unworkable.
4. This is already an (effective-against-activist-investors) option for companies that can afford it / afford to borrow for it. It tends to make uninvesting difficult (because there isn't an effective/efficient/orderly market for the shares, aka the shares cease to be a liquid asset). The shares remain an asset for shareholders, but that asset is now hard to sell, and hard to price (because of that hard-to-sell nature).
All in all, these suggestions smell strongly of a (probably unwanted) result that the innocent are punished to make sure the guilty get hit. You know, like copy protection crap on software, which is based on the assumption that any and/or many of the customers are thieves. ("Because any of you *could* be a thief, and lots of you *are* thieves, we will inconvenience *all* of you by forcing you to have to have the original disk in the drive when you run the software, and to have to buy a new copy if you lose your original disk and want to keep running the software.")