The assumption here is that the rules would be complicated and provide lots of opportunities for gamesmanship. Now suppose the rule is "no company shall have more than 30% market share in any market, any that does shall be broken into no fewer than twelve independent pieces."
No loopholes, if you exceed 30% market share you get broken up. And if they find a loophole then you amend the law and take it out.
> It’s impossible to continuously update a codified set of laws when the underlying moirés of the time have shifted; you’ll just be constantly arguing over the updates to add.
That's just politics. Somehow you need a process to decide what the law should be. The output of that process is the new law. If the output sucks then get a new process. But whether people can agree on what the law should be is a separate issue than whether we should even know what the law as enacted is supposed to mean.
> That’s why the Bible and any prescriptive religious text feels so outdated on many recommendations - it’s a snapshot in time of the values of a culture but those values change.
That's fine, nobody is saying that you can't change the law if a case comes out in a bad way. But it should be the legislature rather than the courts to do it, and the new understanding shouldn't be applied to past behavior ex post facto.