A sane alternative to MAD

Paying people not to hate each other - or, at least, not to express their hatred militarily: that's a crude, but fairly accurate description of the workings of Peace Bonds, a term that encompasses World Peace Bonds, or more geographically limited applications of the Social Policy Bond concept, such as Middle East Peace Bonds.

Some commenters are reluctant to contemplate the financial transfers implicit in these bonds; shouldn't we be peaceful for more edifying motives? I agree, that would be ideal, but I think humanity is too far gone for that. (Readers unfamiliar with the Social Policy Bond concept should look first at a short overview.)

First, this disdain for paying people to bring about socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes needs some grounding. I am aware of, and agree with, the work of Professor Bruno Frey who found that monetary incentives can undermine our willingness to do the right things for ethical and moral reasons. People perform valuable social or environmental services not only for monetary gain, but also because they enjoy doing them for their own sake, because they believe them to be the morally right things to do, or because they believe that their actions will advance some cause to which they are committed. These ‘intrinsic’ motives are qualitatively different from external, monetary incentives, and offering monetary rewards might ‘crowd out’ or undermine these less mercenary and more civic-minded motivations. Crowding out internal motivation can occur, writes Professor Frey, because, monetary incentives can undermine people’s feelings of self-determination and self-esteem. Also, when external incentives are supplied, the ‘person acting on the basis of his or her intrinsic motivation is deprived of the chance to exhibit this intrinsic motivation to other persons.’

Not mentioned by Professor Frey, but also plausible is that financial incentives can undermine the cognitive outlook that sees socially and environmentally beneficial services as worthwhile in their own right, rather than as a cost for which compensation and payments must be paid by taxpayers.

When it comes to war and peace, though, I think there are valid arguments on the other side. First, is that fact that there is no moral reason not to pay people for pursuing goals that have society's well-being as their goal. We pay teachers and nurses a salary; we pay many people who work for charities a salary; and we pay people who work for peace organisations, including the United Nations, a salary. There is nothing inherently immoral about paying people to do things that have an idealistic underpinning. Peace Bonds would certainly see more funds going to people involved in anti-war activities. They'd probably benefit from higher salaries, at least in the short term. But not only would their renumeration rise; so too would their numbers: anti-war bodies would have more resources, including more personnel, with which to pursue their activities. 

Second is that much conflict is driven by monetary incentives. There would, for instance, be much less availability of destructive power if corporations didn't generate revenue by manufacturing it. Monetary incentives play a similar, though indirect, role in financing the spread of hatred and pro-war propaganda. Holders of Peace Bonds could, therefore, achieve results simply by paying corporations to cease production of weapons, or fomenters of conflict to change their rhetoric. It wouldn't, of course, be as simple as that, and bondholders would probably also have to follow more sophisticated approaches, but we should not underestimate what even unsubtle monetary payments could achieve. Even if bondholders did little more than match the monetary incentives of the pro-war complex, that would be an improvement on the current situation. This need not conflict with Professor Frey's findings: achieving world (or regional) peace is already the goal of many hard-working low-paid workers and volunteers, and the enhanced likelihood of achieving peace that a bond regime would confer would increase their intrinsic motivation - and encourage more people to join them.

And third: what is the alternative? War between the big nuclear powers has been unthinkable in recent decades only because of Mutually Assured Destruction. Are Peace Bonds any more outlandish than MAD? And while the number of nuclear warheads appears to have fallen, the number of nuclear powers has risen. In the future it's likely that more rogue powers, including non-state actors, will possess nuclear or biological weapons whose use, or threats of use, would have calamitous consequences. There are well-meaning hard-working organisations trying to restrain our capacity to destroy ourselves and our environment, but they don't have large budgets and, crucially, their financial rewards are independent of their success or otherwise in achieving peace.

Actually, Peace Bonds need not be an alternative: they can be issued in parallel with current efforts. Holders of Peace Bonds would probably increase the funding those bodies they deem to be most efficient at achieving and sustaining peace. 

In summary: Peace Bonds could complement and strengthen the most promising current approaches to securing and sustaining peace. As with all Social Policy Bonds, they'd encourage diverse, adaptive solutions to what now appears to be our species' most urgent, most dangerous problem.