Paying people not to kill each other: why not?

Some of the people I speak to disdain applications of the Social Policy Bond idea because it's transactional. 'They shouldn't be doing it for the money: people should not have to be paid to reduce their pollution, or to look after their own bodies, or not to commit burglaries.' Or, indeed, to refrain from killing each other. So neither Middle East Peace Bonds nor World Peace Bonds, nor any variant has ever been issued; nor, let's be frank, is likely to be issued in the foreseeable future. I will admit that paying people to achieve peace sounds, at first, a long way short of ideal. We should be at peace because we respect and even love each other, even people of a different tribe, race, religion and all the rest. That would be lovely, but it's plainly not working.

So, for those who are squeamish about aiming for a noble ideal (peace) using sordid means (money), here are my reasons: 

• Paying people who achieve peace is similar to paying nurses and teachers who also work, at least partly, for idealistic reasons. Money pays their bills and allows them to raise families. It is not all about enriching already wealthy plutocrats or corporations but even if, under a bond regime, that were to occur, it would have been a result of channeling people's self-interest into socially beneficial outcomes. 
• There are plenty of people who benefit financially from fomenting conflict. A World Peace Bond regime would help to offset the incentives on offer to those people. 
• A bond regime aiming for a decades-long sustained period of peace would set in place incentives for people to explore, research, investigate and refine many different ways of achieving peace. Many bodies already work to this end but...
• ...a bond regime would give them more resources to work with. This includes people: rewarding peace would allow these bodies to attract more, and better-qualified, people to work for them. We need to divert talented, hard-working people away from less socially beneficial activities (trading currencies, say) or socially destructive (creating ever more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction), and towards such worthwhile goals as the ending of war which, I believe, in spite of all the evidence, is achievable - provided we have it as a long-term goal, and reward it in accordance with its value. 

As I say, the current methods of trying to end war aren't working. Perhaps it's because the rewards and incentives are dwarfed by those reaped by those who depend on conflict for their living. A bond regime may be our best hope of bringing about the sustained period of world peace that all of humanity craves and deserves. Or maybe somebody out there has a better idea?