The fundamental ideas are due process (basic requirement of providing notice as to what is and is not illegal) and equal protection (not having a trapdoor in the law for parties that possess the right knowledge). I'd say that laws should straightforward enough that say 80% of the people affected by them can follow them with a little effort. The current state that most everyone must to pay a lawyer to interpret what they can and cannot do is an ongoing travesty of justice, of the same vein as the racket the NFPA et al are trying to run of prohibiting people from being able to even access the law without paying.
And yes the world is complex, but the entire point of a market economy versus central planning is to encourage complexity to remain outside the kernel so that incorrect or aging models will fail gracefully (creative destruction) rather than calcify and become overprescriptive. Allowing businesses to closely transcribe their specific business practices into long term law directly undermines this.
Allowing corporations to write complex laws inherently creates many specific loopholes that essentially bless and fortify their model (regulatory capture), helping capital to coalesce. Responding by encouraging one opposing viewpoint to likewise throw resources into opposition doesn't actually push back against the complexity itself, but rather just encourages ever more of it as each side tries to sneak things past the other's limit of understanding.