You are clueess - read the founding documents for a change.
Statism is not ill defined - it is the accumulation and concentration of Govt power outside founding and limiting constitutional boundaries, which the last 119 years are chocked full of. Most of which are purely a parroting by our Govt and elites to emulate the more powerful Govt's of the Marxist inspired Euro-dictators they so envied starting with Bismark.
The pooh-poohers of libertarianism are intellectual clods who will never see that our Founders were small govt liberals in the classical sense, whose primary purpose was limiting the power of the state to only that which protects our rights that preceeded the state.
The problem being that the Founders were not advocates of the idiocies being propounded by our good friend on this thread who, if you'll take the time to notice, says that there are no powers that private contracts cannot do better than the government -- including national defense.
While I am definitely a proponent of limited government, I confess that I am, indeed, a pooh-pooher of libertarianism. The basic tenets of libertarianism are inconsistent with human nature, as demonstrated through all of history.
"Statism" is ill-defined, especially as used in this article. You'll note, for example, that the argument against a standing army is a complaint against something that's actually in the Constitution (e.g., Article II, Section 2):
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
And thus we see that the Army (the national, standing Army, as distinct from the Militia of the several States) is not "statist" according to your definition, but is being used as an example of "statism" by some on this thread.
As typically used, "statism" means merely this: more government than you, personally, think is warranted. This is not to say that "statism" doesn't exist -- clearly the excess of government we have today is evidence that it's possible (even inevitable?) that power can be unduly concentrated within the government.
But one must be careful in making such charges: who, precisely, is responsible for that concentration of power?