I would argue that even in an economic environment devoid of “traditionalism”, yet one that is prone to shifting laws and continuously changing economic regulation, that you will see far less economic growth (if you define growth as being the expansion of services and exchanges taking place in the market).

As Bastiat noted, “Capital and labor will be frightened; they will no longer be able to count on the future. Capital, under the impact of such a doctrine, will hide, flee, be destroyed.”

…it is in our best interest to embrace that complexity, and manage it to the best of our ability, not continue our futile attempts to stuff it into a box and control it.

Market and societal complexity does not necessarily entail nor necessitate legislative complexity.

And the government has no moral obligation to legislate tradition or simplicity, but rather a moral obligation to promote liberty, fairness, and opportunity.

Government has a moral obligation to legislate based upon natural law and in accordance with Constitutional law. This then implies promoting (securing would be a better word) liberty. Fairness is a myth, as equality under the law never promotes nor creates fairness. As our mothers often told us, “life isn’t fair”. And opportunity is likewise outside of the bounds of government, as equality under the law also leaves to each person the ability, power, and responsibility to create his own opportunities.

Complexity will not decrease. And the government has no moral obligation to legislate tradition or simplicity, but rather a moral obligation to promote liberty, fairness, and opportunity.