In praise of conflict | Jonathan Marks

Summary

In this thought-provoking speech, the speaker explores the complexities of conflict, compromise, and collaboration in both public and private sectors. Through examples of government collaborations with corporations in the areas of public health and the environment, the speaker critiques these partnerships, arguing that they often prioritize commercial interests over the common good. The speech advocates for governments to embrace conflict when necessary, especially when safeguarding public health and the environment. By contrasting collaboration with necessary struggle, the speaker calls for governments to defend the common good, even if it means challenging powerful industries.

Takeaways

• 😀 The importance of conflict and struggle in solving major societal issues, as opposed to just compromise or collaboration.
• 😀 Governments should not prioritize consensus with corporations at the cost of public health and the common good.
• 😀 A personal anecdote highlights the moral dilemma in government decisions when human rights conflicts are ignored for trade relations.
• 😀 The separation of powers between branches of government is crucial for a healthy democracy, where struggle and accountability are necessary.
• 😀 The collaboration between corporations and government can often lead to harm, especially when it compromises public health or the environment.
• 😀 Industry can shape the framing of public health issues to serve their commercial interests, such as in the case of obesity.
• 😀 Governments are responsible for protecting public health and the environment, not just finding 'common ground' with powerful industries.
• 😀 Governments need to engage in conflict with corporations when necessary to protect the public, rather than avoiding confrontation.
• 😀 Real-world examples, such as the Hallowich family’s fracking case, show the dangers of secret settlements that obscure public health risks.
• 😀 The ongoing trend of public-private collaborations often masks the true impact on vulnerable populations, and fails to address systemic problems.

Q & A

Why did the speaker's friend leave his job at the British Foreign Office?

The speaker's friend left his job at the British Foreign Office because he was frustrated with the government's reluctance to take action on human rights issues. His attempts to address human rights abuses in China and Burma were thwarted due to the government's focus on trade relations rather than moral concerns.

What is the speaker's view on conflict and compromise in global issues?

The speaker argues that conflict is not inherently bad, and compromise can be harmful if it overlooks vulnerable populations. Instead, he believes that conflict and struggle should be viewed in context, considering who is involved, why they are fighting, and the potential harm or benefit of compromise.

How does the speaker connect the separation of government branches to the concept of struggle?

The speaker highlights James Madison's idea that the separation of government branches creates an environment of 'struggle' that serves the public good. Struggle between branches ensures that power is checked and that no single branch has too much influence, promoting balance and accountability.

What example does the speaker provide to illustrate harmful corporate collaboration with government?

The speaker describes a case where a United Nations agency collaborated with a multinational soda company to address sanitation in schools in India. The company used the initiative to promote its products, thus exacerbating public health problems by increasing sugar consumption and plastic waste.

What does the speaker criticize about the relationship between governments and industry?

The speaker criticizes the trend of governments collaborating with industries to address public health and environmental issues. This collaboration often serves corporate interests, which can undermine the public good, especially when the industry's goals conflict with the common good.

How does the speaker describe the issue with the government's approach to obesity?

The speaker explains that the government's collaboration with industry leads to the framing of obesity as an issue of personal responsibility, rather than addressing the role of multinational corporations in creating unhealthy food systems. This misalignment ignores the root causes of the problem.

What issue does the speaker raise with the legal and regulatory systems regarding fracking?

The speaker points out that the legal and regulatory systems allow corporations to settle disputes with landowners privately, silencing them and hiding the health risks associated with fracking. This lack of transparency and accountability harms public health and leaves local families exposed to dangers.

What is the difference between 'common good' and 'common ground' as discussed by the speaker?

The speaker argues that governments often confuse the 'common good' with 'common ground.' While common ground refers to agreements that industry can accept, the common good involves making decisions that benefit society as a whole, even if they conflict with industry interests.

How does the speaker view the role of government in protecting public health and the environment?

The speaker believes that it is the government's responsibility to protect public health and the environment. Governments must sometimes engage in direct conflict with corporations to promote the common good, as industry can either support or undermine public welfare depending on its interests.

What examples does the speaker give to show the potential for positive outcomes despite corporate collaboration?

The speaker mentions examples where public officials, regulators, or legislators have taken action against corporations to protect the public good, such as suing pharmaceutical companies for concealing harmful effects or pursuing environmental protections despite industry lobbying.