One of the criticisms of the "simplicity" philosophy is that detailed, precise rules are preferable to vague ones.
I feel this is an inaccurate criticism. To explain why, I'd like to borrow a meaning from the Jargon File: "Elegance".
In computer programming (and engineering in general), an elegant piece of code is one that combines simplicity, grace, and power; characterized by lack of the gratuitous. To quote C.A.R. Hoare: "There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies."
Are the laws of a Second Life land co-operative/virtual township the same as a computer program? Hardly, but a similar principle applies. The goal of the Simplicity Party should not be merely to make all of our laws simple in form, but to make them simple and [i:21g2qdpm]effective[/i:21g2qdpm].
This is not an easy task. It is much easier, in both law and engineering of all sorts, to throw together something mediocre that limps along well enough. However, designing for elegance is more effective in the long run. At every turn, when proposing or examining a bill, the questions, "is this necessary? is this needed?" should be asked.
Thus, our purpose should be [i:21g2qdpm]elegant[/i:21g2qdpm] simplicity; I feel we could call ourselves "The Elegance Party" just as well, save that sounds more pretentious.
This is a failure - not just of recent laws such as the Judiciary Act, but of much of the CDS' laws throughout its history. I can even admit to contributing to the problem, though in my defense I was trying to hack in some maintence to a body of law not designed for the facts of the matter (the various amendments to transform the constitution for the Anzere-based town of Neualtenburg into the constiution for the private sim of Neualtenburg) and a total constitutional revision was not considered an option.
I'd like to discuss this in more detail here and on the 27th.