"technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people's hands. For example, a variety of noise-making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles, etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the regulations... But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them."
"It is a chronic complaint of small-business persons and entrepreneurs that their hands are tied by excessive government regulation. Some of these regulations are doubtless unnecessary, but for the most part government regulations are essential and inevitable parts of our extremely complex society."
I take it that what he is saying is that technology creates social complexity, both good and bad, which then inevitably leads to the loss of liberty. I know Bill Joy, who co-founded Sun, wrote a good article in Wired a while back about reconciling Kaczynski's ideas with Kurzweil's.
That is the quote that stands out to me, and what it tells me is that he believes technology itself to be the bad thing, because it breeds the conflict and resulting regulations.
Regardless of this minor issue, I think that we are both thinking along the same lines.
I don't really think, though, that what you present are the precise beliefs of Kaczynski. In your comment, you seem to have the idea that decreasing costs of production (which is largely due to improvements in technology) is a good thing, while the decrease in freedom is the thing that is bad. It seems to me that anarcho-primitivists actually believe that technology itself is the bad thing, because it departs from the pure, hierarchy-less society of hunter-gatherers.
It is truly an interesting endeavor to consider where the boundary exists between what is good about where we are headed and what is bad. I think that all of us accept the idea that those who have greater drive and motivation to succeed should be rewarded for their efforts, and it's also hard to deny PG's contention that people now are living more luxurious lifestyles than kings of yesterday (heated houses year 'round). We may also argue that if people are content with their station in life (i.e. doing nothing to change it), then what is the problem?
On the other hand, I think that nearly all of us would agree that a situation like that in the Matrix would be a bad thing; even though the people believe they are living well, it is all a facade. Additionally, we are perfectly okay with improving the lives of friends and family members who have been less driven than we, presumably because we love them.
I guess if you consider the implications of that train of thought, if we loved humanity, we would be perfectly fine with sharing everything equally, regardless of the amount of work the individual does, and we thereby arrive back where we started, with hunter-gatherer cultures that have gift societies. We can even see evidence of this model working in the open source movement today.
I'm not really trying to make any points here, I'm just pointing out some interesting questions that your post (and my readings on Kaczynski) brought up in my mind which made me question what I had previously considered to be unquestionable truths. Perhaps it's not necessary for the entrepreneur's reward to be directly proportional to the amount of wealth the he or she has created, especially considering that with the current state of social stratification, opportunity is certainly not equal.