>it is the state that created the markets

This is historically inaccurate.

The fact that the term "black market" exists is proof enough to demonstrate that claim.

That states have always tried their darndest (with varying degrees of success) to control markets to e.g. tax them is a better way of looking at things.

Black markets just operate on top of white markets, often using the same exact state-backed money. Hunter-gather groups and other social structures known to exist before states generally operated on gift economies. There's not really any anthropological evidence that markets existed prior to the formation of states. Read the first few chapters of Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber (RIP).

What I said is:

> it is the state that created the markets they operate in

There's many large corporations who are only still around because of the state, they wouldn't survive on the kind of market you're probably thinking of.

Without the state the big ones would turn into fiefdoms (and probably will anyway).

Markets form naturally from consensual interactions of goods and services for money.

I suppose you could argue the government creating the money allowed the market but alternatives currencies would be created like gold or now crypto.

Markets with particular rules that help keep monopolies in place don't form naturally. They require a state entity to enforce the rules.

Guess this means we should remove as many rules as possible to avoid monopolies.

Not at all, not conceptually and not historically.

You do realize there's many corporations today who only exist because of taxpayer bailouts or thanks to large government contracts, right?

There are humans that are being kept alive by medical machines, this doesn't mean humans can't live without machines.