I view statism as a system of government that uses unwarranted force.  Anti-statism is opposition to a system of government that uses unwarranted force.  Anti-statism does not suggest opposition to government in general, nor does it suggest opposition to all uses of force; it does opposes the use of unwarranted force in general, and the use of unwarranted force by a government, specifically.

I define unwarrented force as the initiation of force, disproportionately large retaliation, and any form of aggression and coercion (of which we have had many a discussion).

This is what Lew Rockwell had to say about anti-state: 

"Question: Your slogan on LewRockwell.com is Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Market; how do you define anti-state?

Answer: To be anti-state is to hold the intellectual position that there is nothing that society needs that the state can do better than the market. If you hold that view, you are anti-state. So in some ways, to say anti-war, anti-state, and pro-market is to propose redundancies of the same idea. I would defend the anti-state idea in every aspect of human life. The market is better in schools, energy, food, housing, charity, trade, consumer protection, justice, security, and even international relations. I know of no exceptions. The major burden of all the editorial work that I do is to make this point again and again."

This definition is a little different from yours.  So when you say anti-state you are talking about force or coercion.  Lew Rockwell says anti-state means there is nothing the market can't do better than the state.  So when I am reading and listening I have a hard time...I guess each discussion needs to have a definition of anti-state before proceeding.  Also, you previously seemed to be in favor of a stateless society but your comments now don't sound like that.

My definition comes from a moral perspective while Lew's definition focuses on the practical reason why aggression and coercion are not needed.  I agree with Lew's definition, and I imagine he would agree with mine (though I am sure he would be much more eloquent).

I am still in favor of a society without any aggression and coercion, thus I am in favor of a stateless society.  Government does NOT equal state.  Think of it like this:

government + coercion and/or aggression = state

So, you are not anti-government.  But in previous discussions it came across that you were.  So, now that we know you are not against government entirely, what do you think the role of government should be?

Over the last several years, I have been learning better how to articulate my position.  I have come to the conclusion that the term "government" does not imply the use of aggression or coercion.  For this, I now use the term "state," though many people mistakenly view the two terms as synonymous.  In short, my position has not changed, just the termonology.  I am still just as pro-liberty as ever, which means I am just as anti-agression and anti-coercion as ever.  I still reject the state.

On the size of government?  I think the government should be whatever size the people that want to be part of it, want it to be.  I, for one, probably don't want ot be part of it... but, thanks for the invite!