Something being involuntary does not make it 'resemble' chattel slavery. It takes a fair bit more than simply not paying your taxes to end up in prison. Your children don't go to prison if you don't pay your taxes.

Yes, it's more similar to a forced labor slavery, than chattel slavery. The forced labor convention (which for some reason wasn't ratified by US) specifically makes exception for civic obligations and compulsory military service because they are fitting the definition.

Children in this analogy forced to go to prison too, when they reach 18 years and refuse their taxes.

It's still not much of an analogy unless you believe that, say, driving on the wrong side of the road, uninsured and without a license is somehow comparable to any form of slavery.

Am I correct that you invoke a social contract as a justification for involuntary actions?

1) You are forced into this contract without your consent.

2) You can't quit this contract with your property intact.

This conditions wouldn't be enforceable if they were between ordinary parties, especially when there is inequality of bargaining power, why do they hold between a state and a person?

1) The IRS does not literally rape people as happened under American chattel slavery

2) Your analogy also has the problem that without taxes, it would not be possible to fund an organization that prevents other organizations from coming in and taxing you (aka "protection money"). Can point to a society of more than 500,000 members that has existed without taxes? I can point to several pre-1865 societies without slavery.

I agree that arguments against slavery were stronger in 1865, than against taxes, but absence of something is a bad predictor about possibility. You couldn't point to a liberal democracy before 18th century too.

On its own, absence is a bad argument. But combined with presenting a problem (that people will spontaneously form a government and collect taxes under threat of kneecapping) it is a stronger argument.

Property enforcement is just as involuntary as taxation.

Restriction of freedom is an inevitable consequence of scarcity. People cannot have everything they want, so you have to have some system which decides who gets what, and punishes people who try to step outside it.

Whether you're locking someone up for theft or tax evasion, it's equally coercive.

Yes, the property enforcement is involuntary, but in the absence of property slavery is not unethical. If there is no property, then why slaves have a better claim to their body and work, than someone else?

Either the idea of property is accepted implicitly, or it is ethical to enslave in some situations.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning? Are you suggesting that control of ones labour is inextricably linked to property rights?

Being able to decide how to spend your time, and having exclusive access to particular resources are completely separate things.