Well, we're taxed because we elect representatives that enact legislation allegedly in line with the constituents' reasons. It's not a wholly involuntary process, it's a democratic republic. If you're below 18, then I suppose it could be theft for you, but most people that age don't even pay taxes so it's really a non-issue for them.

We allow others to represent us because ordinary people do not have the time, energy, or education to properly manage the surrounding aspects that make up their day-to-day lives. This is a much better arrangement than leaving all these duties to private entities, because many systems require monopolies which leads to wholesale greed within private organizations, whereas public institutions are required to be transparent and carry a much harsher penalty for corruption. This is not true in all cases, but I've certainly not heard of the latest plumbing or roadwork scandal.

It's also possible to have private entities do this stuff, as long as it is heavily regulated to the point where it is impossible to exploit the clients which have no choice but to rely on them for that service. Where it is regulated to the point where it would be equivalent to a public service anyway. Very small incentives for corruption, very harsh penalties.

Society benefits much greater from laws that prevent exploitation and corruption than it does without. Greed and inflicting misery is human nature, like it or not, and there is an ironic study that states that some of the best leaders are also the worst people- that they have an inflated sense of ego and are motivated to exploit others for profit. For everyone under them, this is a great deal and they are likely to benefit, but for everyone else that person becomes someone who wants to get into their pockets and bank accounts. This is not true in all cases, in fact I won't even say most or half, but these people exist and they're self-serving to the point of criminal negligence.

Not to say that the best society is the most heavily regulated one, in fact many regulations in the US are highly beneficial to corporations as they enable government-mandated or incentivized monopolies to create huge entry barriers to competition. However, without regulation the same thing happens, as you can clearly see from Edison's destructive policies that forced Tesla into a paragraph of history, instead of a book like Edison. In fact, most corporate practices in the early 20th century, from robber barons to new industries, would cut out your eye if it would make them a quick buck. We do not want to return to those times.

So, could private enterprises run a cheaper (in net costs) and better education? Maybe, but it wouldn't be accessible to everyone. In the long run, an uneducated populace is highly detrimental to the growth of a country. Especially for America, who prides itself on its thinkers and innovators. Having a society of haves and have-nots is exactly the conditions that lead to a 3rd world nation.

Saying that voting and democracy are not "wholly involuntary" processes is like saying that if a mugger demands your wallet or else he is going to stab you to death and you hand over your wallet then the process is not "wholly involuntary."

No it isn't.

Also, per your third paragraph, if you seriously believe that "heavy regulation" makes it impossible for clients to be exploited then I have a bridge to sell you.

Not impossible, but certainly harder. Maybe to the point where the costs and risks outweigh the benefits See: Germany's healthcare system. Or Japan's.

My differences with many of those on this forum is over how the rules or made, how they are enforced, and how the infrastructure of society is supported.

The legitimate options are: Public ownership, or regulated private ownership. Unregulated private ownership will never be on the table, for good reasons.

Apply the same argument people feeding themselves and it falls apart.

Private charities didn't cover education before and they won't after. They didn't cover social security before and they won't after.