Actually, no. A transaction tax of sufficient size to replace our current tax system would put enormous pressures on companies to integrate vertically as much as possible. A car company which owned everything from the iron mines and oil wells for steel and plastic, to electronics companies, to the assembly lines to the dealerships to employee housing and even the company stores for providing food to employees (and the farms for that food) would have a huge advantage to a car company which specialized in building cars so it bought steel from a steel company, molded plastic parts from another manufacturer, etc. Everything within a company would be outside of the transaction tax, so there would be a huge incentive for companies to grow.
Also, many of the transactions most of these people want to tax are financial money shuffling to take advantage of tenth of a percent advantages, so they will either go away if hit with a tax or (more likely) just move off shore so the only transaction is the initial money transfer. After that, buying and selling pork belly contracts can work just as well in London as Chicago.
Any transaction tax based on static analysis will ignore those two tendencies and the rate will have to be jacked up when suddenly 90% of the transactions they counted on taxing are removed from the tax base.
Of course, that's also expensive and tends to promote inefficiencies of management due to bottlenecks in information flow (usually wrongly discounted, IMHO). So I don't think it's as simple as that. It seems likely to me that vertically integrated entities will run afoul of already existing monopoly rules. Any small player may avail themselves of the anti-trust laws by paying the tax. Perhaps to avoid the costs of enforcement other tactics might be used that are already used to avoid legal expense. For example one solution already in use is arbitration agreements. Only the arbitration contract needs to be enforced, and the enforcement tax could easily be limited to the matter at hand. In fact, to avoid losing out to the competition the gov't might simply require posting a tax bond to seek enforcement of a contract in court.
I am not going to foolishly insist there will be no perversion of the object of business by this form of taxation. OTOH, the current system happily perverts business for social and political causes anyway.
I do take exception to the author using the term "right" to describe government power. Government has authority, not a right, to exercise power.