Why is this argument for government intervention wrong?

In his opinion piece “why is libertarianism wrong?” Paul Treanor gives the following critique of fundamental libertarian principles:

'interarchy': are libertarians minarchists?
Some libertarians describe themselves as anarcho-capitalists, or simply anarchists, or minarchists. Anarchy means literally 'no rule' and minarchy implies minimal rule, minimal government. Robinson Crusoe, alone on an island, could claim to have a truly minarchic and anarchist system: absolute autonomous self-government. However, isolation is not what libertarians mean when they use these terms. The political structures proposed by libertarians allow any person to interact with another, in any non-coercive way. Libertarianism, and liberalism in general, recognise no 'right to be a hermit'. But most libertarians not only allow interactive society, they positively value it. They claim it allows knowledge to be shared: they value this input of others. Not just in their own life, but as a general social precept. This high-interaction society, of collective decision making, already has a name: Hayek suggested 'catallaxy'. However, the term 'interarchy' seems better. It indicates that no-one in such a society is 'self-governing' in the Crusoe sense. Others affect their lives: in a global economy, about four billion other adult consumers, and millions of business firms. If minarchy means minimal outside influence on the life of the individual, then libertarians are not minarchists. By the same token, they can certainly not be anarchists.

Reading this, I really wonder how much he has paid attention to libertarian ideas, or political ideas in general. He claims that libertarians (and presumably not statists) “recognize no ‘right to be a hermit’.” In fact, if anybody, it is the Republicans and Democrats who fail to do this. If at all unsure, read section III, part 16 of the libertarian party platform. Now this “party line” version of the right to secession is very extreme, and I don’t agree wholeheartedly with it, but at least it leaves no doubt as to the party’s intentions. In a libertarian society, people would be free to do on their private property whatever they wish, as long as it doesn’t infringe the liberty of other people around them. If someone could live solely off of the resources on his or her property, in the “Robinson Crusoe” sense, he or she would not be obligated to interact with the surrounding society at all, except maybe to pay the small amount of taxes to fund protection of his or her property and freedom from attack by outsiders. The other political parties, however, have an overwhelming impulse to consider every human action, no matter how private, in terms of its impact on the surrounding society. For instance, a person may not grow certain plants or produce certain substances on his or her property, simply because consumption of those increases the risk that he or she will later go and put the lives of others in danger. In this system, there is no space into which individuals or small groups of individuals can retreat, as “hermits,” and act autonomously.

If it seems that libertarians “not only allow interactive society, they positively value it,” this is typically for the following two reasons:

1) They are trying to appease those affiliated with other political parties, whose valuation of interactive society so dominates their policy decisions as to surpass individual freedom in many cases, and some of whom believe that a libertarian form of government could only succeed if everyone restricted all contact with others to impersonal economic transactions on the “free market.”

2) Much more importantly, an interactive society is required to attain the standard of living we are currently used to. Bare-bones items such as furniture, plumbing fixtures, and eating utensils, not to mention high-tech ones like appliances and computers, require the work of many people to be made. A society in which everyone lived like Robinson Crusoe would contain nobody who could own all of these items. Libertarians admire freely interactive societies for how they make all these things possible, often without involvement of a central authority, not because they have a moral belief in favor of collectiveness versus isolation. Many others, in contrast, do show moral preferences in favor of certain collective institutions (just listen to any politician and count how many times he uses words like “community”).