Aren't "activists" also a case of special interests trying to control government? Your comment uses unwritten assumptions that I'd like to be made explicit. :-)
Actually I agree with you; I hold the libertarian view I described, and replacing shadowy cabals with left-wing activists is not my idea of an ideal solution. But I know that some people hold the view that those who are elected have legitimate power (as opposed to any unelected group). I wanted to know whether anyone would argue that "more democracy" is the solution to the problem of special interest groups having undue political influence.
Except that the libertarian vision just means that there is no formal negotiation tool that the diverse special interests can use to settle their differences and arrive at a modus vivendi. All that is left is money, power or naked violence; and the vast majority of people have little money, almost no power and are unwilling to risk violence. So the 'libertarian' vision results in less freedom for most people.
To use a metaphor from physics, the libertarian ideal is not a stable equilibrium, it isn't even on the path of a stable cycle. It's trying to balance a pencil on the pointed end.
Wrong, there can be a lot accomplished without money through voluntary collaboration. In fact that is the essence of libertarianism. Respect that others may disagree with you, and that you have no right to point a gun at their head to make them obey you.
I have no interest in compelling others to do more than leave me alone; the fact that this is not universally true means that I must either be prepared to meet violence with violence, or delegate the job to others.
As I said libertopia is not a stable equilibrium. It collapses into violence and warlordism if there is even one defector.
There can be multiple stable points of equilibrium in a given system. To use the pencil example, there are an infinite number of stable equilibriums where the pencil is laying flat, but none where it is standing on the pointy end.
