Andre Gouin wrote,
>The constituency for a GAI is not powerful
>because it maybe addressing the problem too globally. When we note our
>bureaucrats gnawing away at all our "universal" systems, health, education,
>old age pensions, I get the feeling that GAI is going counter-current, even
>though I'm all for it as a just alternative to spreading the wealth,
>especially that created by machines.
Good point. Each of the traditional universal programs has a small core
constituency -- medical professionals, teachers, pensioners -- that is more
vocal than the universal public. The erosion of universality probably starts
with the capture of the universal program by the core constituency, so that
health care becomes "what doctors do", education becomes "what teachers do"
and pensions become the maximization of current entitlements.
I don't have the answer for this, but it would be worthwhile to think
through the question of who might be or become a "core constituency" for a
GAI and how such a program might be shaped/distorted by the interests of
that core.
The irony of universal programs is that they work best when no one needs
them. The task that a core constituency sets itself is to find a continuing
and growing need for their program.
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Vancouver, B.C.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 669-3286
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
