Let me be extremely critical here: there is moral judgement in the quote while it argues against that. That taxes would be enforced exactions, in lieu of laws,

Let me be extremely critical here: there is moral judgement in the quote while it argues against that. That taxes would be enforced exactions, in lieu of laws, goes counter to the common moniker to follow the spirit of the law. To follow the law by the letter might be a bare necessity eventually, that can't support the moral argument. The essence of the quote is a warning of false analogy that's pretty much in line with a liberal capitalism, and also from analogy in law in general. But it's not inline with a liberal rule reading, especially as unforseen cases were meant to be covered in hindsight. Tax law is terribly verbose to not miss a cases, which is a good thing for the intention of giving everyone a fair warning so to speak, and it is frequently changed to cover it's bases. If the comment really amounts to an attack on case law, I fully agree. And it's an understandable thought insofar he's in the position to have to sift through it the most, or at least a lot, I guess. edit: only if the frequency of changes is not enough or not exact, for whichever reason, that might introduce impedance mismatch here and there.