This seems a little too black and white. I think you need to consider that some things work best when provided by the government, some things work best provide

This seems a little too black and white. I think you need to consider that some things work best when provided by the government, some things work best provided by third parties but heavily regulated, and some things need a completely open arena for competition. Not only that, but that this will change over time as services become more or less crucial to the community. And all this will change with the size of the community the particular service is for. Your arguments aren't really historically valid (look up the history of private fire departments in large cities), nor are they factually based (look up the actual cost of public first class mail and the guarantees it gives you). IMO, they aren't philosophically valid either, but that's just my opinion and people who are more compitent may disagree. The whole consent thing seems poorly justified. There are a lot of things we don't consent to in our lives. Our gender, our race, our lineage in general, the community of humans we are born into, the larger events that impact us that we may have no control over. Even if you buy the consent argument, the answer to your dilemma is "easy".. move out of the locality that's taxing you to one that isn't. If you have to leave the country, oh well, that's your choice whether to be involved in a particular community. But this is just as "easy" as determining that taxation is theft because you don't like it. So, there's no moral difficulty here, just the problem that you have to do something you would not rather do. Such is life.