I think you are confusing availability of choices with voluntaryism. Voluntaryism solely concerns itself with whether an interaction involves the initiation of force or not (or its threat.) I am not implying that there is an inherent “involuntaryism” in the world, because there is no agent imposing it. Things simply are scarce. In fact, the notion of scarcity is what brings about choice conceptually to begin with. Voluntaryism applies to human interactions (or rather, those between rational beings if others were to come to the table in ways other than being food), because this is where the potential to wilfully coerce others creeps in, whereas with “nature” there is no such will or indeed person to which to apportion blame.
Voluntaryists focus on the state because a) it is the most flagrant and obvious coercive institution in society, b) it enables and even encourages “private” coercion, or ignores it, or substitutes itself for it under the auspices of its fake legitimacy, c) it has absolutely no claim to the resources it controls as it has neither acquired them legitimately nor has it homesteaded them (and as for the social contract, to the extent that that pipe dream exists it only applies between the state and the people who signed it, and as any other contract, can be terminated at will.)
Hence why we oppose taxation. We oppose all theft and robbery, and all slavery. I agree that in principle increasing the amount of choices people possess is beneficial, but absolute, boundless freedom does not exist. Reality itself imposes limits on us. Hence why voluntaryism is not couched in unrealistic and unrealisable terms. I’d say it is wrong to assert that voluntaryists don’t care about parental abuse or lack of employment options. They do. As much as I am not 100% in favour of him, take a look at Stefan Molyneux and the guests on his show. The issue only arises when some voluntaryists use the rhetoric of free markets and apply it to blatantly coercive employer (or parental) situations that occur in the present. In that instance I agree that there is a blnd eye being turned.
However, there is also this tendency to conflate something not being the best of all worlds with it being “coercive”. The employer, by virtue of being an employer, is coercing no one. Any resources they acquired in a voluntaryist society would either be the result of homesteading, in which case no one was aggrieved as the resources were unowned ab initio, or acquisitions of wealth, i.e. derivatives of homesteading. In the event that they stole them, acquired slaves etc. they’d be treated like any other criminal.
With regards to the choice not to “control” one’s production etc., you can do that now even. Granted, the state does limit the ways in which you can do it, and the reason we oppose it is not so much because of the options being limited per se but rather because of the fact that it limits them without any right to do so. Bear in mind e.g. not dating someone is “limiting their options” but not in an objectionable way. Nonetheless, you can risk your own resources and invest or start a business (of any organisatonal form, could be a franchise, network marketing, creating a new firm and so on), work for a wage, do nothing if others are willing to support you for free etc., especially when the state is dissolved and the structural incentives it creates gone with it. Therefore it would be more correct to say that voluntaryists believe these sort of problems, to the extent that they are problems, are best dealt with through voluntary means and not the state. But that does not mean they will put a lack of choices on par with the positive act of coercion.