In an article discussing the motives for libertarian activity, Robert Murphy criticizes Ludwig von Mises’ arguments from rational self-interest.

He starts out giving some credence to the fact that economic life is not like a non-repeating game. I've written an article elaborating on this: David Gordon and the cash register thought experiment. There’s also this related lecture by Lucas Engelhardt: Entrepreneurs vs. Game Theory.

Murphy moves on to his next argument:

Is it really true that a secular humanist, armed with all the knowledge of economics, could convince a David Rockefeller or a Henry Paulson that his standard of living would be improved by abiding by the tenets of classical liberalism? If those examples leave the reader unsure, what about Kim Jong-il? If Ayn Rand were locked in a room with the North Korean leader, could she really convince him that the value of his own life would be enhanced by refraining from looting others?

I agree that one is unlikely to change the mind of a person whose entire life is built around a different ideology. I don’t however believe that in order to achieve change in society it is necessary to change the minds of the people in power. The people in power derive that power from their subjects’ belief, and beliefs change all the time. Young people and those not fully embedded in the status quo are more likely to take an interest in alternative ideas, as Ron Paul would tell you. When Murphy makes arguments opposing Paul Krugman, is it to convince Krugman?

“I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.” — Étienne de La Boétie

Murphy continues:

Again, it is true that if the whole world embraced laissez-faire capitalism, even current despots would probably end up living with greater material prosperity. But that is not the choice any current despot faces. He looks at the options at his disposal, and the likely choices that others (including despots) will make during his lifetime.

Despots be despotting, indeed. I don’t concern myself with them, similarly how I don’t concern myself with politicians, the political theater, or voting.

If we consider a more average person, for example someone who has a desk job for a government privileged corporation. If he were to understand Austrian economics, then he could be persuaded to support free markets (the division of labor, competition, etc) for everybody else. And if a significant portion of the population would support free markets for industries other than where they may have some handout or privilege, then that would amount to a significant combined pressure for change.

Another effect of looking through the lens of Austrian economics is realizing the effect government policies have on your work environment. Taking the same worker again as example, he would understand why his work is so bureaucratic, not intellectually stimulating, not focused towards consumer value and consumer respect, why he is not surrounded by people who have a very interesting view on society, etc. He may just quit for something more personally pleasing; it’s not all about dollars and cents.

Murphy: We can go further. If the foundation of morality really were a rationalist calculation of the actions promoting one’s self-interest, some of the most heroic defenders of liberty would be fools. Consider the dissidents under a thug such as Chile’s Pinochet. Many of them chronicled his abuses so that future generations would know the extent of his crimes, knowing full well that they would likely be murdered for daring to oppose his regime. Under the Misesian and especially the Randian framework, these rebels all behaved foolishly — indeed they arguably behaved immorally.

I find heroism a very dangerous social meme and I don’t think risking your life, unless absolutely necessary, is something to be praised. I also question whether heroism/self-sacrifice is necessary to achieve or keep liberty. I expect moral nihilists to be more resourceful and strategic, and thus harder to control.

Murphy: So why do even secular humanists cheer such heroes? Because they view themselves not as simply maximizing the chance of material prosperity, but as engaged in a battle of ideas. Many of today’s libertarians would rather live on the streets than become an IRS agent. Surely this decision wouldn't be driven merely by an estimate of the likely long-run earnings from either career path (where other libertarians perhaps punish the person for seeking IRS employment and temporarily earning a higher paycheck). No, there is a much deeper sense among many secular libertarians that working for the IRS is just plain wrong and therefore it’s not even an option.

As I have pointed out, there are many aspects to a human being’s value system. It is not necessary to jump to the (allegedly existing) realm of universal law to see why a libertarian would not want to work for the IRS.

Murphy: The theist who believes in a just and omnipotent God does not suffer from the above inconsistencies. He can justify his passionate and heroic defense of liberty. Even if he dies, he knows he has done the right thing — where “right thing” is not defined as a set of strategies to maximize the likelihood of achieving earthly happiness. Belief in the God of the Bible gives one hope in the ultimate triumph of good over evil.

A moral nihilists doesn't believe in evil. He’s not worried about having to fight it in the first place.