Ugh. Excuse me while I vomit for a while.
Philosophy is also based on faith-based axioms. While that is reprehensible, regular philosophers have an excuse for being jackasses. They study stuff which lacks any real world manifestation. So if you ask them, "why don't you take that to the data?" They can say "gee, we would really like to, but in our field there are no observable data at all."
Firstly, I'm sorry that presenting such ideas makes you ill. As I'm quite healthy; I can only make the assumption that you, cunicula, are sick.
See, this is why you have such a problem with 'libertarians' is that they reject the core of your argument on moral grounds. They unmask you as a sociopath.
You hold a fundamentally incompatible premise:
Aggressive violence is reasonable if it leads to better economic outcomes.
While an Austrian would hold:
No economic outcome is reasonable if it makes use of institutionalised aggressive violence
Since you dont believe in the non-aggression principle; you show that you dont restrict yourself to moral thinking. That you believe that any means is justified by the end.
Being moral is an end in itself. There is no requirement for an economic reason. The philosophy that such an action is moral is enough.
Austrians (and libertarians) do not believe that the end justifies the means! They believe that how you get to an outcome is critically important. They want to create a environment that is healthy, so that good and healthy fruit can be grown.