Consider the Citizen
Be wary of internationalism in a national democracy.
Just finished reading Vitalik’s recent criticism of being a single-issue voter, mainly when that issue is “pro-crypto.” He makes good points across the board and should be taken seriously. However, one point is too ideological for my taste, and that’s the section “Crypto and internationalism.”
Internationalism is a Kantian idea. People should vote, act, and speak in ways that benefit all humans, not just those within your polity. Easy enough. However, two points make internationalism as an ethos not feasible or desirable. Internationalism disincentivizes individual competence, and it only benefits those with international mobility.
To some’s chagrin, there isn’t a world government where we all vote. Even if there were one, there would be federated governments by necessity. The guy picking up my trash in Philadelphia won’t drive to Mexico City to pick up trash there and defy arbitrary borders like administrative districts. Any district will have people with personal incentives for wealth and status. Assuming you want the government governing a region to be good at it, those incentives will hinge on the performance of services and the region's well-being. Internationalism is at odds with competence.
When I go outside, I’m not surrounded by Vietnamese, Sri Lankans, or Egyptians. I’m surrounded by Philadelphians, who are Pennsylvanians, who are Americans, who are humans. If I throw trash in the Schuylkill River, the distribution of harm is strongly biased toward people in Philadelphia. Yes, the effects propagate to impact the world, but the cost is overwhelmingly burdened by locals. My actions disproportionately affect my neighbors, and their actions me. Voting in ways not biased towards one’s locale will negatively impact the people immediately around me and, therefore, me. The additional 4 jobs in China at the expense of 1 job near me means I am paying for unemployment, I am smelling the excrement of the homeless, and I am at additional risk of crime and civil unrest. Internationalism is an idea that is only affordable to those who can flee its consequences.
I don’t want you to come away with a binary idea of pro-in-group & anti-out-group. This is not my case. Rather, your vote ought to be skewed toward your fellow citizens and residents. There is some gradient, but that is for you and your countrymen to decide. In line with Hobbesian thought, the foundation of social organizations is the threat of physical violence. I like the following heuristic: when the risk of local violence is unacceptable, vote local; when it’s acceptable, vote global.
The case for crypto does not need internationalism, and being pro-crypto does not require being anti-local. While crypto does not acknowledge the arbitrary boundary of “citizen,” you still should.