> Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about.
This canard about libertarians [1] not understanding the complexity of the real world is oft-repeated, but it is misguided, and comes off as condescending to boot.[2]
The likes of Hayek and Friedman did not contend that reality is simple; they contended that it was complex -- too complex for economic systems based on expansive government intervention (socialism, mercantilism, etc) to grapple with and produce satisfactory outcomes.
They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist.
Now, you are free to question whether empirical evidence bears out either point. But it is ignorant to suggest libertarianism is based on eschewing complexity.
1. Here I am referring mostly to libertarians of a consequentialist lean. Libertarians of a mostly deontological lean are orthogonal to this discussion because whether or not they understand the world's complexity is mostly immaterial to their policy prescriptions, as they are concerned mostly with morality, not outcomes.
2. Usually unintentionally, I would hope, though it seems that at least with mpyne it is not.