This specific quote from the article made me think of lawmaking - the more detailed the law the harder it is to pass (someone can always fine something to nitpick). Therefore, laws are best at establishing goals, principles, guide rails, etc. Nothing is perfect but the way in which laws are implemented SHOULD remain a separate part of the law passage.
Separate rant: I live on the west coast and am annoyed when I vote because of the number of ballot measures. None of them are sufficiently detailed and fall victim to vague language that's open to interpretation. I'd rather "hire" law makers to do the hard work of details law creation.
Nah. There's no valid reason for lawmakers to delegate so much authority to bureaucrats. We should eviscerate the administrative state and if legislators want to prohibit something then they ought to specifically write it down. If that means it becomes harder and slower to pass new laws then that's fine. It should be a careful and deliberative process.
Some of that vagueness is intentional and not always for nefarious reasons either. When getting my the FCRA cert, there definitely a few requirements that were obviously very open ended so the gov could either pursue a potential unforeseen circumstance or not stifle business. The vagaries in laws has always been interesting to me. Unfortunately, I don't remember any definitive examples since I took the test years ago now.
Separate rant: I live on the west coast and am annoyed when I vote because of the number of ballot measures. None of them are sufficiently detailed and fall victim to vague language that's open to interpretation. I'd rather "hire" law makers to do the hard work of details law creation.