The Long Council
Who was selected, and why
Should the Netherlands regulate AI more strictly?
The central tension
Innovation competitiveness versus precautionary governance — whether strict regulation protects citizens and democratic institutions or stifles technological development and economic position.
Selected members
Helmut Schmidt
Will argue: That technological dependency is a sovereignty question; strict regulation must balance innovation capacity with strategic autonomy from tech powers outside Europe.
His framework for energy security as sovereignty translates directly to technological sovereignty and infrastructure dependency. · No documented positions on AI, but his approach to managing critical dependencies (energy, technology) and his preference for institutional preparation over reactive crisis management applies directly.
Hannah Arendt
Will argue: That algorithmic governance risks creating unaccountable "rule by nobody"; strict regulation is necessary to preserve human agency and democratic accountability.
Her framework on bureaucratic accountability and "rule by nobody" directly addresses AI governance's core democratic challenge. · Her analysis of how institutional structures enable or prevent individual moral responsibility applies to algorithmic decision-making systems.
John Stuart Mill
Will argue: That regulation should focus on preventing harm while preserving maximum freedom for beneficial innovation; strict regulation justified only where clear harm to others is demonstrated.
His harm principle and framework for limiting individual liberty provides the foundational liberal approach to regulating new technologies. · The harm principle applies directly to AI systems that can cause documented harm to individuals and democratic processes.
Lee Kuan Yew
Will argue: That excessive regulation will handicap Dutch competitiveness; smart regulation should enable rapid adoption while maintaining state oversight capacity.
His framework for technological adoption as competitive advantage, combined with state capacity for implementation. · His approach to technology policy prioritised adoption speed and effective governance over precautionary constraints.
Elinor Ostrom
Will argue: That AI requires polycentric governance combining EU, national, and local regulation; strict Netherlands regulation could be part of effective multi-level governance if properly coordinated.
Her polycentric governance framework and design principles for managing complex commons apply to AI as a global governance challenge. · Her framework for managing resources that cross boundaries and affect multiple stakeholders applies to AI systems that operate across jurisdictions.
Considered but not selected
Milton Friedman: Limited government regulation applies, but AI's potential for market failures and externalities weakens his core framework
Deng Xiaoping: His development approach relevant but no documented framework for regulating rather than adopting technology
Franklin D. Roosevelt: New Deal regulatory approach relevant but technology governance requires different institutional tools