The idea, which you claim to hold, that "the state should play any role in making markets" means that markets will work best when there is no state, no rules.

The idea, which you claim to hold, that "the state should play any role in making markets" means that markets will work best when there is no state, no rules. No way to enforce contracts, just force. You can claim that failed states are not a good example of this all you like, or that baboons trade therefor states are bad or whatever, it's still a ludicrous set of claims, with no logical structure. You seem to be here to push a fringe ideology. I respect your ability to talk details about this ideology, but frankly, fluency doesn't make it any less absurd and counterfactual. I refer you to examples above.