Technology and Liberty

Because dystopian literature typically depicts event that take place in the future, it often features technology more advanced than that of contemporary society. Usually, the advanced technology is controlled exclusively by the group in power, while the oppressed population is limited to technology comparable to or more primitive than what we have today.

[source: Wikipedia]

Is technology, on balance, positive or negative for liberty? We'll assume for the moment that "liberty" is already well-defined, and is something akin to the stock libertarian version. Dystopian and related fiction provides many interesting insights into the nature of power, liberty, and the state. However, as the quote above correctly points out, technological advances are almost always seen as harmful to liberty. Does this characterization conform to reality?

There will be no easy answer, so do not hold your breath. But it seems that technology can provide at least some help to the cause of liberty. And maybe even enough to outweigh the negatives, which certainly do exist.

If we agree with Mises that "the history of mankind is the history of ideas" and Keynes that "the world is ruled by little else" than ideas, then technology is almost certainly a benefit for the cause of liberty. To take one example that is perhaps a bit overemphasized, though still effective, "we have a powerful tool that Rothbard [and many others] lacked: the Internet." Technological advances in the dissemination of information have always helped in increasing skepticism of concentrated power, and the Internet is just the next step in this process (though, admittedly, a major one).

Military and weapons technology is perhaps an example that generally runs counter to liberty, as it is typically used by the powerful to oppress the powerless. This is especially true with the advent of weapons of mass destruction. Although, this is certainly not always true. There is the general, vague notion that an armed populace is necessary for the preservation of a free society, though this is in direct response to the centralized power possessing advanced weaponry as well. There are also many specific historical instances of smaller populations resisting more powerful aggressors, both temporarily and permanently (well, permanency is always a fuzzy concept).

This is really a complicated issue, far beyond any of our individual expertise. But perhaps through this Hayekian medium we can collectively answer the question (or at least move closer to "it").