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.
Help me understand this please.
Why does their hypothetical "pure" Capitalism, which uses wages for working people who are enticed with economic benefit so tragic? Why is it necessarily violent? Why is it inefficient?
From what they are saying, it would seem to offer some benefit over the do-as-thou-wilt alternatives in that there is some measurable elements of the benefits provided to those engaging in it, as well as a mutual agreement that could preclude any violent engagement. Of the systems proposed here it seems to at least have potential viability and a measurably beneficial method to reduce coercion and unnecessary statist intervention.
How does one choose which of the many options for contributing labor to their society without evaluating the benefit to the society that labor offers, by looking at the differing compensation voluntarily exchanged for the labor options? What is the more efficient method for making this determination?