you presuppose that taking a peaceful option wouldn't result in a lack of a state in the long run

Political activism and voting demonstrably failed to promote anarchism of any form in the government of any nation throughout the entire 20th century.

like encouraging policies like the devolution of power to a smaller and smaller level

supporting movements that seek to grant independence to regions

How will you promote individual sovereignty when your political actions promote popular sovereignty? Where is the line where people will cease believing in the latter?

I don't know that they will work, but I am highly optimistic about them.

Let me try to explain this:

If you create any law that dramatically affects taxation, pensions, social security, welfare, etc, there will be mass riots. Violence is inevitable.

There is an entire parasitic class of people, both in America and Europe, who will declare you to be an advocate of "Austerity" and "Unfettered Capitalism".

You may be successful in promoting liberalization, you mean even be successful in promoting separatism.

But individual sovereignty, the major reductions in taxation, destatisation of the military, abolishing national parks; these are all things that people don't understand and they will react violently to it.

What protects you from a military coup?

Do you understand how likely it is that the mere election of an ancap would trigger an anti-capitalist revolution?

Secondly, a peaceful and gradual transition over 40-50 years is preferable to one which takes the lives of up to a billion people.

A billion people? I would agree if this were plausible. I highly doubt that we would wipe out 1/7th of the global population with Molotov cocktails and 3d printed guns.

And after that, what image does the Voluntaryist society have? One that promotes morality above all else?

Yes, because there's no reason to believe that we will kill a billion people. And there is no need to do such a thing.

I argue that without the general masses wanting to accept ideals of the NAP, society will inevitably move back towards a State.

We have heard this argument before. It is common.

Finally. I guess I must misunderstand the NAP. I understood it as the initiation of force against peaceful people was inherently immoral

This is correct.

Wouldn't a violent situation cause Peaceful people to be drafted to fight

Possibly. And yes, conscription is a NAP violation, hence we would resist it.

Nations can be prevented from implementing the draft. Manpower acquired from the draft can easily be insufficient to restore order (in large countries like USA and Russia).

And it is needless to say that most people (in America, at least) are violently opposed to the draft.

Wouldn't an attack on the state cause peaceful people to die.

We would not initiate force against anyone. If peaceful people died, it would be due to their reliance on the state, or the actions of the state.

You are forgetting the part where peaceful people are already dying and suffering throughout America, Europe, and all of the world.

So while a good person might die as a consequence of our actions, we will not be the ones initiating force, and other good people will be saved in the process.