Consider where this logic would take you if you applied it to
all spheres of life. There would never be experimentation, innovation, or in fact development of any kind.
Coming back to the Objectivist angle, there's a great passage from Atlas Shrugged that covers this:
=====
"Then what on earth do you know about Rearden Metal?"
"That it's the greatest thing ever put on the market."
"Why?"
"Because it's tougher than steel, cheaper than steel and will outlast any hunk of metal in existence."
"But who says so?"
"Jim, I studied engineering in college. When I see things, I see them."
"What did you see?"
"Rearden's formula and the tests he showed me."
"Well, if it were any good, somebody would have used it, and nobody has." He saw the flash of anger, and went on nervously: "How can you know it's good? How can you be sure? How can you decide?"
"Somebody decides such things, Jim. Who?"
"Well, I don't see why we have to be the first ones. I don't see it at all."
"Do you want to save the Rio Norte Line or not?" He did not answer, "If the road could afford it, I would scrap every piece of rail over the whole system and replace it with Rearden Metal. All of it needs replacing. None of it will last much longer. But we can't afford it. We have to get out of a bad hole, first. Do you want us to pull through or not?"
"We're still the best railroad in the country. The others are doing much worse."
====
In general this feels like a class of logical fallacy, of the form "no-one has attempted to achieve X, so X must be undesirable" but I can't find it in any lists.
edit: To make it clearer, take your post, and substitute slavery for coercive taxation. Your argument immediately appears specious, because with the benefit of hindsight we know that large, complex, modern societies did just fine after abandoning slavery. But people argued against emancipation in just that way at the time.