This is an attempt to say what I was trying to say in the last post more succinctly. Any theory, and worldview linked to those theories, needs to have what it holds as assumptions and what it actually theorizes about clearly established. For instance, an economic theory can accurately describe how a certain range of activities take place within a given social and institutional structure. It probably can't accurately describe the process by which the range of activities covered by the theory changes as social norms alter to bring more activities within the economic sphere, say why old age care gets sent out to the market where before it was done in the home. It may try, but it probably can't explain this well. Economic theories are unlikely to be effective at describing the proper role of the state since they don't really have a theory or clear concept about the state, it isn't a theory of institutional change. This is the role of a theory of the state. For any worldview to effectively describe the world as it actually is, instead of how it is in theory, it needs to be recognized that certain aspects of any theory are artificially held constant. These assumptions should not be seen as an ideal type to be moved towards, but instead necessary assumptions for the functioning of a given theory. These assumptions themselves can be unpacked and theories about their functioning constructed.
In other words, you can make a theory about economics under a given state structure, and you can make a theory about the role of the state within an economic structure but you should not let your theory about economics dictate state structure nor should let your theory about the role of the state dictate your economic structure. This was a very foolish mistake that seems to be made rather frequently.