1.) Lead by example. It’s the best evangelism for any idea including peace.

2.) If axiom above is accepted: Partner or split up with other parties if you like, but never invade.

3.) The moment one organization invades another organization, the first’s sovereignty becomes “undefined”.

To lead the world toward peace, a proof like the one I’ve drafted above could help convince every entity on earth to walk peacefully. If the world is the sum of its members and no one supports invasion, then, if you invade another entity, the denominator for your existence in the world becomes zero. You are no longer sovereign. In other words, you can’t be treated as sovereign while being invasive.

Other notions for leading by example:

After our own economy and healthcare infrastructure are on a better path, offering to share our newest reform models with other nations wouldn’t be a bad idea. However, it would probably be better to just let other nation’s improvise their own versions.

The best validation for success is when others reproduce your positive results or make them better still – building strong localized economies through decentralized power could reap many more benefits beyond the most obvious goal of more resilient economic happiness.

I believe strongly that we shouldn’t promote an enemies list. We can disagree and object to policies without rejecting people. If we better invested ourselves in this philosophy our investments in prevention and security could be maximally effective.

Unfortunately, especially in the recent past, evangelism by the most unctuous brand of USA diplomacy has made those receiving our gratuitous and heavy door-knocking highly suspicious of our country’s real motives. We will do better to mind our hearth at home for awhile. Where are W and Greenspan these days? Despite the fact that some of their actions have put the world in a less stable place, I doubt either has quit planning for how they can be of positive value for the world. Let us take their cue and work quietly for a long while. Our country’s great companies, athletes, artists, and entertainers will be able to hold the torches of our USA values for a great long while.

Letting other nations request wisdom and resources on their own terms will make both our brand of prosperity and any of our diplomatic efforts more effective in the future. When we act rarely, those actions will get received more seriously.

Until we break the world’s opinion that we want to play nanny it’s better to let our citizens interested in providing kindness (admittedly, these acts of kindness can also serve as important leads for security prevention) participate with an international organization or private humanitarian hat. Doing our part to fund strategy and communication through some of these other groups implementing the work seems smart.

Furthermore, we could, if it seems prudent, invest in other countries peaceful development. Investing rather than aiding makes our motives more obvious and underlines for everyone on all sides of every transaction understand the link between prosperity and peace.

We should not invest to pick winners and losers between the payers of tax within our country, but if we want to place wise bets on the direction specific neighbors in the world are taking that is a positive.

Consider this analogy: Parents create a level playing field at home by investing equal amounts in each child, but they may go out of the way to invest unequally in their neighborhood to help buy shingles for a particular, favorite neighbor who wants a better roof. That investment will actually pay dividends, in many forms, for everyone in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, we can’t just give aid with no contract for an investment return as you might give freely to your neighbor because the world remembers our recent history wearing a diplomatic zealot’s hat. Our altruism isn’t to be trusted much – to be very frank. But we can sidestep this reputation problem by making investments in the world with the expectation of a financial return to our taxpayers.

I would applaud private and international organizations who choose to give aid to fight specific sickness and water pollution, but I would not dedicate our government to participating in aid not associated very directly with our own security on a regular basis. Why? Scope creep. Our federal government should be about security and protection of our citizens only. Any able person or state that relies too much on outside aid begins to depend on aid.

My paragraph above about investments is, itself, a stretch of the proper role of government, but conservative investments that pay dividends to citizens within our border while also helping bringing about peaceful development and prosperity. If we get our government systems respectable again, we might be able to ask our citizens to give our federal leaders that assignment. However, I think most people would leave humanitarian efforts to international and private organizations that do this work. We pay dues to the United Nations and we have generous citizens who work and give funds to international relief organizations, we don’t need our federal government people and resources competing with those efforts.

International consultants helping locals plan a barn raising of any sort might wear a UN or Red Cross hat, might wear a Gates or Heifer Foundation hat, or might just wear a Starbucks or Coca-Cola hat. Who knows? Remember, I believe in competition and free markets for public service. Our people may vote to allow government employees wearing USA hats to compete later, but I think it’s not wise now while our country heals from this reputation as a ‘meddler’.

Managing the risks of the more volatile weather patterns we are seeing is worth more regular engagement with other nations. Preventive medicine is preferred for ecosystem health as well. The bigger the ecosystem the more sense it makes to bring our USA hat for the conversation.

Finally, I suggest we bring our troops home and end all foreign military aid for one year to reassess its utility. This will signal a clear new attitude for our country. As well, I fear the aid, in particular has become habitual in a confused attempt to ‘earn’ superficial relationships with capricious nations. Instead, we can prompt more credible partnerships by focusing on leadership through example. If we cut this funding to all countries, no country will feel particularly slighted.