My argument is that there are other forces in the world than right and wrong, and when people can't agree on what right and wrong means, those other forces are what rule.

Do you eat meat? Have you ever killed a plant? what about that bacteria you wash down the drain when you brush your teeth? What gives you the right to do any of these things, and is it ok? Are you going to tell the dolphins that gang rape one of their own for weeks that they are wrong (it's a thing)? What about ducks and roosters where every act of sex could be seen as rape?

This may seem extreme, and beside the point but yes, there is more than one morality system on this planet and in this universe, and yes its subjective.

I think there is [subjective!] value in what you are posting about, you've outlined some really solid critiques but as it is presented, because of the morality problem, it creates a situation where two groups are talking over each other (kinda like this reply thread).

The burden of proof argument becomes completely null unless it's acknowledged by both parties, as i'd still argue that the two groups are working from different sets of morality. You seem to argue that it doesn't matter cause the described morality "praxeologicaly absolutely the truth" and statists are violating it. As far as the described morality, the burden of proof is on you, cause i say that is absolutely an assumption.