http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/the_neo-reactio.html

A Paleo-Whig determined to stay paleo-, to de-activate the progressive conveyor belt, after first returning to a far earlier socio-political status quo, cannot be a mere revival of classical liberalism, but is compelled to be something else. A liberal order armed against demotic ‘progress’, it might be argued, is inherently reactionary, because the enemy it defines itself through is not the ancien regime it deposes, but the popular statist politics which it knows lie ahead.

The state does pre-exist the kinds of law, markets, money, language, etc. we’re talking about here. You don’t get dense agglomerations of unrelated people called cities and markets in the first place without the state imposing a monopoly on violence and suppressing male territoriality. Money, written laws and language, accounting, record keeping arose to organize the activity of unrelated masses of people after the state had come in and brought unrelated masses together.

Prior to the state fostering agglomerations of less related people, people don’t participate in large, anonymous markets, nor do they necessarily need to rely on physical money or written language, since verbal agreements can often suffice among closely related people. You could argue that these verbal agreements and the economic activity of these people are but examples of money and markets, but then you could also say that the ruling male or males also are just examples of the “state” in these societies.