I have a new product to be considered by the powers that be. It is a measure that will end war forever. I am asking $7 billion for it. Setting aside the question of credibility, let alone proof, of my measure being able to put an end to war, a serious negotiating state will want to calculate the equivalent capital stock in the present whose interest over time would pay for all anticipated wars engaged in by the negotiating state. Such calculations probably are a fantasy given uncertainties in politics, but an anthropological study, over a long period of time, might not be a fantasy, at least to the point of indicating that such a capital stock would by any estimate be vastly greater than $7 billion for a major power.
That leaves for consideration the question of proof that my measure will end war forever. My credentials are just about zip, me being mentally ill and all. Nevertheless, I am not so stupid as to state my measure openly and then defend it against counterarguments. I have written down succinctly and it is brief. It is not especially technical and I believe a politician could understand it in essence. The problem is escrow. How do I convince a state to make a $7 billion escrow deposit? I am confident my measure is correct in similar terms to the confidence the Manhattan Project scientists that their first atomic bomb test would work. (I recently read a book entitled, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, written by a Pulitzer Prize winner, though I don't recall if he won it for this book. I thought it was excellent. And I do have a bachelor's degree from U.C.S.C. in physics.) My confidence relates to my part of the escrow. I would have to agree to a definite criterion of success for my measure, and most likely such a criterion would have to have a very long term of application. For one thing, I haven't calculated how long it would take to work. It might not be immediate. For another, since the calculation of an estimate of the cost of past wars would best be made over a long time span, a criterion for success of my measure would best also reach a conclusion only after a long future time span.
I would have to agree to a criterion reaching completion almost certainly long after my own death, causing me to bring into my side of the negotiations a consideration of the certainty of my establishing a lasting genetic line without benefit of a realized payment. I would have to not divulge my measure not only unless the escrow deposit were made, but also not unless I was satisfied it had legal and constitutional strength lasting to the same completion time for the criterion of success. This becomes tricky because states have a tendency not to last long in anthropological terms, which is why I added constitutional strength to legal strength. I believe that if the negotiating state expects me to act in good faith on my side of the escrow, coming to terms with certainty of genetic continuation to my own satisfaction and in my own way, it will act in good faith on its, and only a constitutional provision--an amendment--would give me anything approaching certainty that future citizens of the negotiating state will abide by the terms agreed to by the current citizens.
These are heady notions given my mental illness.
One thing is clear though, the exact time at which the criterion of success of my measure would be assessed determines much of the rest of the deal. I would hope it to be soon, but keeping $7 billion in escrow for a long time would be expensive and the negotiating state would for that reason want it to be soon also.
As for providing a reason for a state to make the escrow deposit, my sole recourse at this stage of discussion is the integrity of my blog. It has been described as great by one of my associates. This gives me confidence I am going in the right direction, and to continue in pursuit of greater objectives than supply and demand allow by themselves.