You have called me a statist in a context strongly suggesting such name calling constitutes an argument credibility and substance.

You cannot see that the definition you provide is in no way justifies such name calling? It is not a definition that even fits the context you have used it it. It is pure nonsense.

Yes I argue that the state is an important mechanism in economic functioning and therefore (conditionally) legitimate but unless you have demonstrated that you can refute my position on that you have provided no argument at all.