"Embracing taxes as good" is a confusing phrase, one with which I think you are intentionally confusing others or have accidentally confused yourself. Yes, he was "embracing" at least some amount of tax on some things some of the time as good. This is a very modest claim.
I accept that you found it confusing, though I'm not sure that the analogy with the phrase "embracing killing as good" is on target. I certainly had no intention of meaning anything other than "embracing some level of taxation as acceptable".
I don't really want to have an argument about whether some taxes are good, so I'm willing to stipulate for this conversation that it may be that some are, but I did find this interesting:
As it doesn't naturally occur to people to apply their pro-tax (which means pro-some tax, some of the time) outlook to endorse actually harmful slavery, it is invalid to raise the consistency argument as a reason to abolish taxation.
I note that the only way to make this sentence true was to include "actually harmful", a phrase which handily excludes any types of slavery it naturally occurs to people to argue for, such as the draft or prison labor.
"Embracing taxes as good" is a confusing phrase, one with which I think you are intentionally confusing others or have accidentally confused yourself.
I have either changed my mind or had inexcusably poorly worded my thoughts. I think you were accidentally sneaking in negative connotations, but do not think you intend to confuse or are confused by this phrase.
My analogy to killing was fantastic, but if you are a deontologist, it is not because this particular phrasing with its strong incorrect connotations has confused you. Categorical thinking...
From Mike Darwn's Chronopause, an essay titled "Would You Like Another Plate of This?", discussing people's attitudes to life:
Conclusion, graphs, and references in article. As usual, I recommend reading Chronopause.com as Darwin has many good articles; to quickly link a few: