No Inherent Conflicts of Interest

The claim that there are no inherent conflicts of interest holds that the genuine, rational interests of people do not fundamentally clash. Apparent conflicts trace to error, irrationality, or scarcity that is solvable rather than to a built-in war of all against all. The corollary is that win/win outcomes are generally available: it is not a fixed fact of life that some people must lose so others can win.

The idea is older than CF. Classical-liberal political philosophers argued for a harmony of interests, and Ayn Rand defended it within Objectivism. Goldratt reached a parallel conclusion in Theory of Constraints: conflicts can be resolved without compromise by surfacing a mistaken assumption in the logic that seemed to force a win/lose choice.

CF endorses the thesis and extends it with a distinctive move. Elliot Temple argues that conflicts between ideas inside one mind are logically the same problem as conflicts of interest between people in a society — both are resolvable, and in both cases there is an objective truth about what is good that every side can be satisfied with. So the same arbitration method applies internally and socially: act as a neutral arbiter seeking a solution none of the parties has an outstanding criticism of, rather than picking a winner.

Within Objectivism, Temple prefers foregrounding “no conflicts of interest” and win/win over Rand’s emphasis on selfishness, treating it as the more useful framing for moral judgment and rational cooperation. The position opposes zero-sum thinking and the assumption that losers are a necessary feature of social life.