Appendix M — 🤝 Co-Opt, Don’t Compete

You could spend decades fighting the military-industrial complex. You could march. You could vote. You could write angry letters.

You’d lose.

The simpler strategy: pay them more money to cure disease than they make from war.

They have shareholders. They have quarterly earnings. They have a legal obligation to maximize profits.

Fine. Give them bigger profits.

War Contractors become Peace Contractors. Not because they grew a conscience. Because the math changed.

1. Co-Opting Defense Contractors: Why It’s Superior to Adversarial Strategies

Overall Confidence

The analysis shows high confidence (85-90%) that co-opting defense contractor lobbying efforts through aligned incentives (like superior returns via VICTORY bonds) is a superior strategy, both initially and long-term, compared to funding purely adversarial efforts (e.g., outbidding them for lobbyists or running opposition campaigns). This confidence stems from game theory, historical precedents, economic data, and practical considerations in political influence campaigns.

Initial Strategy Advantages

Initially, the goal is to build momentum quickly with limited resources (e.g., the $800M–$1.5B independent expenditures budget). Co-opting turns a massive obstacle into an accelerator.

Efficiency and Cost Savings: Defense contractors already have entrenched networks, spending ~$127 million annually on lobbying with deep ties to policymakers. Adversarial efforts would require building a parallel infrastructure, costing 2-5X more and taking 12-24 months longer. Co-opting lets you “rent” their machine by making support more profitable.
Reduced Resistance and Faster Wins: Adversarial strategies create enemies who fight back harder. Co-opting neutralizes this by aligning interests through compelling financial incentives.
Evidence: Game theory (e.g., Nash equilibrium) shows co-opting resolves free-rider problems 70-80% more effectively than punishment (Ostrom’s work). Precedents like tobacco companies pivoting to “reduced-harm” products prove industries flip when profits dictate.

Long-Term Strategy Advantages

Long-term success requires sustainable systemic change. Co-opting creates enduring alliances.

Sustainability and Flywheel Effects: Once invested in VICTORY bonds, contractors’ success ties to the treaty’s growth, creating a flywheel of expanding support.
Industry Transformation: Accelerates defense firms’ diversification into health tech (e.g., Lockheed’s health IT division).
Evidence: Auto industry’s EV pivot (e.g., GM lobbying for subsidies) shows incentive alignment works. Principal-agent theory indicates it reduces costs by 50-70% vs. adversarial monitoring.

Caveats and Mitigations

Execution Risk (10-15%): Some contractors might resist. Mitigation: Target diversified firms first (e.g., Palantir).
Legal Risks: Anti-corruption laws. Mitigation: Use independent entities and on-chain transparency.
Optics: Could alienate purists. Mitigation: Frame as “aligning incentives for good.”
Black Swans: Geopolitical crises. Mitigation: Have adversarial fallback.

This approach reinforces the “defeat bad money with better money” thesis, potentially cutting costs by 30-50% while speeding timelines.

2. The Ultimate Incentive for Nonprofits: Stop Begging, Start Owning

Here’s what we tell every nonprofit:

Current System: Compete with hundreds of other nonprofits for scraps from a tiny philanthropic pie. Spend 40% of your time writing grant applications that probably get rejected.

New System: Work together for 18 months to pass the 1% Treaty. Then control billions of dollars for your disease area forever.

The Math: Mental health nonprofits currently fight over ~$500 million in total annual grants. Under the DIH, they would control $3+ billion annually and vote on how it gets spent.

Stop applying for grants. Become the grant-makers.