Historically, top-down control of economies hasn't worked out that well. The whole point of free markets is to let everyone decide on the directions they want to take.
That fully centralized command economies have had severe issues historically doesn't mean completely deregulated markets would fare better. I don't think anyone is seriously hoping for a comeback of privateers.
Arguing that one extreme is bad is not an argument for the other extreme, especially when every economy on Earth currently exists somewhere in between those two extremes rather than on either end (except maybe the DPRK if you squint really hard and tilt your head).
Incidentally the current scarecrow of unfree markets, the PRC, is doing economically pretty well and "top-down control" within large parts of the industries is pretty popular except we call it "vertical integration". But that's a tangent, I agree.
"Stagnation bad, disruption good" is 101 level analysis. The important question remains the direction. Disruption is movement. Movement is good if it takes you to a better place. But if you just move for movement's sake you might as well end up hurling everyone down a cliff. Letting go of all the reins is fun and exciting in a simulation, not so much in the real world where failure can mean death, suffering and permanent harm.
