You make a good point that loss of some kinds of freedom might be compensated by gains of another kind. But I think you are incorrect in implying that by making

You make a good point that loss of some kinds of freedom might be compensated by gains of another kind. But I think you are incorrect in implying that by making this observation you are exposing a logical flaw in Kaczynski's argument. The things that you view as great about cars and computers (such as their ability to connect us with friends over long distances, say) are viewed with suspicion by Kaczynski. He thinks that, at the end of the day, these things are not fundamental to human freedom or happiness. At the same time, things that he thinks are fundamentally important are attacked in obvious ways by the omnipresence of cars and computers. Thus, his objection to these two technologies takes into account your idea that gains and losses need to be weighed against each other. Of course, you can reply that Kaczynski is stupidly ignoring the positive effects of these technologies and that he is wrong when he asserts that the things that they give us are not fundamental to human happiness. To argue this, you will have to make certain claims about human psychology. Obviously there are plenty of things that we enjoy but that could be removed from our lives without causing great harm to us (Skyrim, for example). There are other things that are integral to our happiness (the love and respect of our family, for example). Kaczynski is arguing that technology attacks things in the second category while giving us lots of things in the first category. His underlying argument is that modern individuals have, through adoption of advanced technology, lost touch with fundamental sources of happiness. The setting in which to substantively debate Kaczynski is the setting of psychology, I think: what really makes us happy?