Wikipedia: Statism is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.
Please explain in what way the views I expressed are statist. I like to think that I live by the non-aggression principle and believe this is irreconcilable with the state.
Your views are Statist because they accept the validity of the state as representatives of the people when it comes to economic and social policy. For example:
Absolutely. But this analogy does not fit the case of the voter and the state. The voter and the state are the same. By voting you become the criminal because you give permission to the rulers to say "your money or your life" to others.
You see the relationship between the voter and the State as part to whole. This is a Statist view. The analogous NAP view would be that the relationship is between victim and aggressor.
You draw no distinction between voting to reduce the State and voting to increase the State. When the State comes to you and says "your money or your life", you see no difference between saying "please take my money and do not kill me" and "please kill as many people as possible". This is a Statist view.
A victim may use whatever means they think best to defeat an aggressor. They share culpability with the aggressor only if they act to increase the aggression used.