They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
There you have it. That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.
Even that hypothetical "pure" Capitalism needs to have wage slaves indentured with economic coersion to generate profit for a profiteer -otherwise it's just squirrelish stockpiling.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.
You object to something altogether different than what is advocated. Again, you don't understand what capitalism is, and are apparently unwilling to reconsider your position; and thus assume that we are your opposition because you misunderstand our position. Your confusion is not our responsibility; and despite our attempts to clarify your misunderstandings, you don't seem to have any interest in understanding anything. I'll admit, in the beginning I misunderstood your position as well, as your's is a rather unusual perspective in my experience; but I'm no longer confused. I understand your position, I don't disagree with it in any significant way; but you have a severely closed mind, either unwilling or unable to consider circumstances or possibilities outside of your prior consideration or comprehension.
When I first engaged you, it was because you were namecalling and being mean. Since then, I've learned that you don't think you owe the world anything and you don't think an opinion can be a persuasuive argument.
You think I can "learn" what capitalism is from you? When I've been under its boot and the boot of its conjoined twin, the state, my whole life?
What you're advocating is a popular
idealist fallacy. While you can't disagree with me on any meaningful way, I strongly object to the revisionist rhetoric you obviously consume and regurgitate.
Your position is one that relies on what amounts to the
blind systemic abuse of billions.
Read more stuff you don't like and you might have a clue about what I'm saying.