If we accept that force is less passive than non-force, wouldn’t it make sense to seize the political apparatus, and then enforce non-intervention so that an anarchist society could develop?
That seems to embody a performative contradiction. In order to seize the political apparatus, some amount of intervention seems to be necessary. Furthermore, even after the political apparatus has been successfully seized (let’s suppose), others will try to seize it (or seize it back). Some amount of intervention seems to be necessary here as well, to defend against the political opponents.
Indeed, to fully prevent against takeover once the political apparatus has been seized, one should kill off all potential competition. Of course, that would constitute murder, which is hardly non-intervention. 
But if the Anarchists know the process by which their desired outcome can be met, why not use force to ensure or hasten the arrival of the desired end? Everyone seems to reserve the right to be a hypocrite, except for the Anarchists.
In the limit, everyone is a potential competitor to usurping the political system. Hence to kill off all potential competition would ultimately entail killing off literally everyone else on Earth except for oneself. Note that this is not the desired outcome of anarchists.
We try to advocate practical means. Anarchism can rely on force, just not force initiated against innocent people. So yes if beating up tax collectors worked, we’d advocate it. But we have a lot of better less barbaric ideas.
This ^^ and that using force to create a society not predicated on the use of force doesn’t seem very wise. Yes, defensive force is permissible, but resolving conflicts with force doesn’t serve the libertarian anarchist position IMO.
Why not just stand in the doorway of every State institution and demand that government dissolve itself?
The State would just sweep you out of the way, via its police, like a gnat.
This idea that we must do nothing more passive than indoctrinate the population in order to overcome the State is impotent, IMO.
What exactly makes it impotent, in your view? Do you disagree with the notion that all states owe their continued existence (at least qua states) to popular consent?
I think the reason it seems impotent to you is because the vast majority of people around the world still believe in the state.
Nope, I don’t disagree at all with that notion. What makes anarchist activism impotent in my view is the nature of non-participation. In a world where the vast majority of people still believe in the State, I think anarchism ought to spread via the State.
Because that is a waste of time. The way to peacefully effect change is to withdraw consent, not to confront physically.
And you have been at it for how long?
The first step is to better educate people about the truth of the state. Then when they withdraw ideological consent in greater numbers, they will withdraw material consent, and the state will cease to exist, peacefully and swiftly.
The groundwork for a better social order has to be laid by engaging people to think about what sort of world they want to live in, and how they can change their expectations and actions to achieve it. Removing the state without a population ready to try markets is a recipe for revolution, not evolution.
You’re welcome to try it. But there are enough people sitting around on forums and blogs trying to tell everyone how to achieve freedom, we need leadership from people engaging in the marketplace of ideas, not planning them from the sidelines.