I'm enjoying your posts Larken. One thought in response to this:

It’s important to note that in most cases, such a reaction from a statist is not because he is intentionally being dishonest, or is consciously trying to change the subject. It is simply the result of him reflexively avoiding ideas that make him uncomfortable.

I'm a big fan of the principle of charity. While this description may be true in many cases (maybe in all), it's not necessarily so. It is possible that the statist, in response to your questioning, has internally accepted the proposition that political authority, and what it does, is morally illegitimate - but has not articulated this acceptance to you.

They instead have moved on and are talking about something else: Perhaps political authority is immoral, but the absence of it would give rise to greater suffering and injustice. Consequentialist statism (based on appeal to ignorance).

I do agree with you that it's important to get explicit acknowledgement about the fundamentals though, and keep asking if you're not getting it. I'm very familiar with this pattern from the responses to George Ought to Help. The most common comment on that youtube page is me asking "In which of the situations shown in the video, if any, does it become acceptable to threaten violence against your former friend?". Most critics fail to answer.