Building My Case for Epistemic Liberalism — and Why The Sovereign Individual is Epistemically Authoritarian
We live in an era of rapid technological change and disruption. It has led to a widespread sense of uneasiness and a sense that people are not in control of their own fates. It is increasingly common to hear arguments that the trajectory of our social, economic, and political order is driven by forces beyond individual control. From the rise of artificial intelligence and automation to the growing power of digital platforms and rising concerns over things like surveillance capitalism–a pervasive model of monetizing through advertising and persuasion by piercing the veil of individual privacy–there is a pervasive sense that our future is being shaped by the imperatives of technological progress, rather than by human choice and agency.
This kind of technological determinism — the belief that the development and deployment of technology follow an inherent logic or trajectory that is independent of human values and decisions — poses a profound challenge to the ideals of democracy, self-governance, and human flourishing. If our fate is truly in the hands of an autonomous and unstoppable technological juggernaut, then the scope for meaningful political action and moral deliberation becomes vanishingly small — the idea that technology drives social and historical change has deep roots in Western intellectual history. From the Industrial Revolution to the rise of digital computing, technological determinism has often been invoked to explain and justify the transformation of social, economic, and political structures. However, this perspective has also been critiqued by thinkers who emphasize the complex interplay between technology and society, and how human agency and social forces shape the development and use of new technologies.
In the 20th century, technological determinism found expression in various forms of Marxist and neo-Marxist thought, which posited that changes in the mode of production (i.e., technology) were the primary driver of historical change. This perspective tended to downplay the role of human agency and cultural factors in shaping social and political outcomes and has been criticized for its reductionism and historical inaccuracies.
In this context, my philosophy of epistemic liberalism emerges as what I see as a vital and necessary corrective. Epistemic liberalism, as I have articulated it in my previous work, is the view that a free and flourishing society requires more than the absence of formal constraints on individual liberty — it requires the cultivation of a robust and inclusive public sphere in which a wide range of perspectives and experiences can be expressed, debated, and transformed through the process of reason and evidence. At its heart, it is a commitment to the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings and the idea that every individual has the capacity and the right to participate in the collective project of knowledge-making and meaning-making. This means creating social and political arrangements that maximize the scope for open inquiry, dialogue, and the exploration of alternative possibilities, rather than ones that restrict or foreclose certain avenues of thought and expression. In my previous essay, I condensed this concept into a rather philosophically dense term: the normative possibility space. It also provides a grounding justification for why certain forms of inquiry that would shrink the landscape of possible futures and experiences should be resisted as epistemically illiberal, even if they don’t appear to violate individual rights on the surface.
Enter Silicon Valley’s Techno-Libertarianism and perhaps its most inspirational text: The Sovereign Individual by James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg. I can’t tell you how many times people in the tech industry have asked me if I have read this book, and how much it influenced their belief in the role that technology would play in the ultimate dissolution of the state as we know it. But I’ve never understood why people saw what they said as prophetical.
The reverence with which many in the tech industry regard The Sovereign Individual is striking and speaks to the powerful hold that technological determinism and radical individualism have on the imaginations of many in Silicon Valley. The book’s central thesis — is that the rise of digital technologies will inevitably lead to the erosion of traditional forms of government and social organization, and the emergence of a new class of “sovereign individuals” who can operate outside the constraints of geography and nationality — has become a kind of article of faith among many techno-libertarians. Balaji Srinivasan’s concept of “the Network State” is essentially an attempt at trying to instantiate this concept. Like The Sovereign Individual, the Network State concept is premised on a highly deterministic view of technological change, assuming that the rise of digital technologies will inevitably lead to the erosion of traditional government and social organization forms. This view ignores the inherent complexity and contingency of social and technological change and forecloses the space for genuine public deliberation and democratic decision-making about the direction and impacts of these changes.
At its core, the sovereign individual thesis presents a highly atomized and voluntaristic view of social organization, one in which individuals are free to choose their affiliations and associations without regard for the broader social and political contexts in which they are embedded. While there is certainly value in exploring new forms of social and political organization that are more responsive to individual’s needs and aspirations, the radical individualism of the sovereign individual model risks undermining the foundations of a democratic society by suggesting that individuals can and should be able to opt out of traditional forms of political and social obligation in favor of self-selected digital communities, the sovereign individual thesis weakens the bonds of mutual responsibility and collective action essential for addressing complex global challenges. It assumes that the only viable response to the rise of digital technologies is a kind of market fundamentalism and technological solutionism, in which the pursuit of individual freedom and autonomy takes precedence over all other values and considerations.
Moreover, the sovereign individual thesis is premised on a highly deterministic view of technological change, assuming that the trajectory of digital innovation is fixed and inexorable and will necessarily lead to a particular kind of social and political order. This view is not only empirically dubious — as the history of technology is full of unexpected twists, turns, and reversals — but also epistemically authoritarian in its implications.
By presenting the future as a foregone conclusion and dismissing alternative possibilities and perspectives as mere obstacles to overcome, the sovereign individual thesis forecloses the space for genuine public deliberation and democratic decision-making about the direction and impacts of technological change. It assumes that the only viable response to the rise of digital technologies is a kind of radical individualism and market fundamentalism and that any attempt to assert collective control or social responsibility over the development and deployment of these technologies is doomed to failure.
While there is no doubt that digital technologies are indeed transforming many aspects of our lives in profound and far-reaching ways, the epistemic authoritarianism of The Sovereign Individual lies in its presumption that this transformation is inevitable and unidirectional and that it will necessarily lead to a particular kind of social and political order. The book presents a highly deterministic view of the future, one in which the logic of technological progress and market competition will inexorably lead to the erosion of traditional forms of government and social organization, and the rise of a new class of “sovereign individuals” who can navigate this landscape of constant change and upheaval.
This vision is epistemically authoritarian because it forecloses alternative possibilities and perspectives, and presents a single, monolithic view of the future as the only viable or desirable outcome. It assumes that the trajectory of technological change is fixed and predetermined and that individuals must simply adapt to this new reality or be left behind. In doing so, it denies the possibility of collective action or democratic deliberation in shaping the direction and impacts of technological development. Atomization of society is therefore seen as the only way forward. Community is mediated by markets and technology, first and foremost. If your conception of a common good does not fit into this frame, then too bad. Whether you like it or not, this world is coming — at least in the telling of technological determinists like Srinivasan, Davidson, and Rees-Mogg. It’s also coming in the telling of many of those in the crypto industry. Indeed, the rise of blockchain technologies is seen as a kind of proof that the prophecy is playing out in front of us.
The vision advanced assumes that individuals can and should be entirely self-sufficient and self-determining and that pursuing personal freedom and autonomy should take precedence over all other values and considerations. This view is empirically dubious and ethically problematic, as it fails to recognize the inherent interdependence and mutual obligation that characterize human social life.
From an epistemic liberal perspective, the vision advanced in The Sovereign Individual is deeply troubling because it seeks to close off the space for genuine inquiry, dialogue, and contestation about the nature and direction of technological change. It presents a view of the future that is not only highly speculative and uncertain but also profoundly deterministic and anti-democratic in its implications.
At the core of the sovereign individual worldview is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between technology and human agency. This perspective treats technology as an autonomous force that operates independently of human choice and intention, inexorably reshaping the social and political landscape in ways that are beyond our control. In doing so, it assumes that technology will inevitably undermine the foundations of traditional democratic institutions and processes, rendering them obsolete in the face of new forms of digital social organization. But this view ignores the crucial ontological reality that technology is always the product of human design and intention, shaped by the complex interplay of social, economic, political, and cultural factors. The technologies we create and adopt are not neutral tools that emerge in a vacuum but are imbued with the values, assumptions, and power relations of the societies that produce them. As such, the direction and nature of technological change is not predetermined or inevitable but is the result of ongoing contestation and negotiation among different actors and interests.
This is where the importance of human agency comes into play. Rather than simply accepting the inevitability of technological determinism, we have the power and the responsibility to actively shape the development and deployment of new technologies in ways that preserve and enhance the possibilities for democratic deliberation and collective action. This means recognizing that technological solutions are not a substitute for political ones, but rather a complement to them — and that the possibilities for collective action in the digital age are not fixed or predetermined, but are the result of ongoing struggle and contestation.
In contrast, epistemic liberalism insists on the need for a more open, inclusive, and participatory approach to technology governance, one that recognizes the inherent complexity and contingency of social and technological change, and the importance of collective deliberation and decision-making in shaping the future. It rejects the idea that there is a single, inevitable path for technological development, and instead emphasizes the need for ongoing public scrutiny, debate, and accountability in the design and deployment of these new technologies. Not the least of which, is artificial intelligence.
The promotion of technological determinism and radical individualism by figures like Davidson, Rees-Mogg, and Srinivasan cannot be understood in isolation from the political economy of the tech industry. The rise of digital platforms and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small number of tech companies has created a context in which these ideas can flourish and gain traction.
On one level, the sovereign individual thesis can reflect the libertarian and anti-statist ethos that has long been prevalent in Silicon Valley. From the early days of the personal computer revolution to the rise of crypto-anarchism and the cypherpunks, there has been a strain of tech culture that sees technology as a means of liberation from the constraints of government and social institutions. At the same time, the promotion of these ideas serves to legitimize and reinforce the power and influence of the tech industry itself. By presenting technological change as an autonomous and inevitable process, it downplays the role of human agency and democratic decision-making in shaping the future, and positions tech companies and entrepreneurs as the natural leaders and beneficiaries of this transformation.
Moreover, the emphasis on individual autonomy and market-based solutions aligns with the financial interests of many in the tech industry, who stand to benefit from the erosion of public goods and the privatization of social and political functions. The vision of a world in which individuals are primarily consumers and investors, rather than citizens and community members, serves the bottom line of tech companies and their shareholders.
Ultimately, the epistemic authoritarianism of books like The Sovereign Individual represents a profound challenge to the values of democracy, pluralism, and human agency at the core of the epistemic liberal project. By presenting a highly deterministic and atomistic view of the future and foreclosing the possibility of alternative visions and perspectives, such works seek to limit the scope for genuine public engagement and deliberation about the kind of world we want to create.
More generally, applied to technology and its social impacts, epistemic liberalism offers a powerful critique of technological determinism and a compelling vision for a more democratic and participatory approach to innovation and progress. Rather than viewing technology as an autonomous force that operates independently of human agency, epistemic liberalism insists that technology is always a product of human values, choices, and power relations and that its development and deployment must be subject to public scrutiny, debate, and accountability. This means rejecting the idea that there is a single, inevitable path for technological change and recognizing that there are always multiple possible futures shaped by the complex interplay of social, economic, political, and cultural factors. It means acknowledging that the design and use of technology are never neutral or value-free but always reflect certain assumptions, interests, and agendas, and these must be made explicit and open to contestation.
Most importantly, it means insisting on the primacy of democratic deliberation and collective decision-making in guiding the trajectory of technological development. Rather than allowing the future to be determined by the narrow imperatives of profit, efficiency, or innovation for its own sake, epistemic liberalism argues that the direction and pace of technological change must be subject to public oversight and control, guided by a clear vision of the common good and a commitment to human flourishing.
In practice, this might take many forms — from creating participatory technology assessment processes and citizen assemblies to developing new forms of regulation and governance that prioritize transparency, accountability, and the protection of individual rights.
Underlying all of these efforts is a recognition that the path of technological change is not fixed or predetermined, but is always the result of human choices and actions. By embracing the principles of epistemic liberalism — by fostering a culture of open inquiry, dialogue, and democratic participation — we can shape the direction of technological development in ways that reflect our deepest values and aspirations, rather than simply accepting the dictates of an impersonal and unaccountable technological imperative.
This is not to suggest that the challenges posed by emerging technologies are easily resolved, or that there are no difficult trade-offs and uncertainties to be navigated. We are living through a period of profound and accelerating change, reshaping every aspect of our social, economic, and political lives in ways that are often difficult to predict or control. But the response to this uncertainty cannot be a retreat into technological determinism or a fatalistic acceptance of the inevitability of certain outcomes. Rather, it must be a renewed commitment to the principles of liberalism — to the idea that human agency and collective deliberation are the ultimate sources of meaning and value in the world and that the future is always ours to shape and create.
This means embracing the complexity and ambiguity of our current moment, while also holding fast to certain core values and commitments. It means recognizing that the path forward will be marked by ongoing contestation and struggle and the possibility of new forms of solidarity, creativity, and cooperation. It means maintaining a deep faith in the power of reason, dialogue, and democratic self-governance to help us navigate the challenges and opportunities of a rapidly changing world.
The debate over the social and political implications of emerging technologies cuts across traditional ideological and disciplinary boundaries. From neo-reactionaries who advocate for a return to traditional forms of hierarchy and authority to post-humanists who envision a world in which the boundaries between human and machine have dissolved, a wide range of perspectives and movements grapple with these questions.
Epistemic liberalism can offer a distinctive contribution to these debates by grounding its analysis in a commitment to human agency, democratic deliberation, and the pursuit of the common good. In contrast to the technological determinism of the sovereign individual thesis, it insists on the primacy of collective decision-making and public participation in shaping the future. In contrast to the radical individualism of market-based solutions, it emphasizes the importance of social solidarity and mutual obligation in addressing complex global challenges. By situating itself within these broader conversations and movements, epistemic liberalism can contribute to the development of a more holistic and inclusive vision of the future — one that recognizes the transformative potential of emerging technologies while also insisting on the importance of human agency, social justice, and democratic accountability in shaping their development and use.
Ultimately, I think epistemic liberalism as a framework for renewing liberalism, can offer a way out of the paralysis and despair of technological determinism, and a vision for a more humane, just, and flourishing future. By insisting on the primacy of human agency and collective deliberation, and by working to create a more open, inclusive, and participatory public sphere, we can ensure that the trajectory of technological change is guided by our deepest values and aspirations, rather than by the blind imperatives of profit or efficiency.
This is the great task of our time — to resist the seductions of technological determinism and assert the primacy of human agency and collective deliberation in guiding the path of progress. It will require all of our creativity, courage, and commitment, but we cannot afford to shirk or ignore it.
For, in the end, the stakes could not be higher. The choices we make today about the design, development, and deployment of technology will shape the contours of our social, economic, and political reality for generations to come. They will determine the scope and quality of our freedoms, the health and resilience of our communities, and the possibility of a fair, just, and sustainable world for all.
