I agree with this statement. If you accept this assertion (I assume you do), then you know that the mere existence of the state, however small, hinges on the existence of taxes. These taxes will produce inorganic fluctuations in the market in proportion to the state’s size and scope. So, while you may have a very small state, and a mostly free economy utilizing a system of production defined by mostly organic, emergent mechanisms that guide/direct production, it cannot, by virtue of the state’s very existence be totally, purely free; in in your words “organic”. Therefore, by your own definition of capitalism, capitalism = anarchy. I don’t understand how you can possibly say otherwise, unless we are disagreeing on the meaning of anarchy, which i don’t imagine that we are.
Edit: perhaps capitalism does not directly equal anarchy, as far as their definitions go. Anarchy is the absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. While capitalism is as you’ve stated above. Perhaps i should have said that Anarchy is a necessary condition to achieve true capitalism. I think you got what I mean though.