For instance, even within the USA, there are certain people who find more "personal freedom" in rural, sparsely-populated areas, and certain people who find more "personal freedom" in a high-rise apartment building in a big city where nobody makes eye contact with their neighbors. Which one is more up your alley?
Would that make such a country free or non-free?
[0]: Denmark, Finland, Norway, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Iceland (everyone forgets about Iceland!)
...
(But seriously... who is this list even for? Why would you possibly care about a Freedom Number™? What does that do for you? This is like those stupid LinkedIn top 100 best companies to work for lists. Its like... you sure did gather up some numbers and do something with them... but why?)
Among other things, they all have substantial taxes (in the 25-40% of take-home income range) and use it to fund substantial civic infrastructure / state-run welfare. My understanding is that libertarianism is generally sympathetic to the position that taxation is theft, and libertarianism is incompatible with large governments and large social safety nets. But it seems like I'm missing something.
(I usually see these countries being described as social-democratic - is that incorrect?)
- Nordic countries nearly always beat all other countries in health, happiness, or any similar fundamental, well-being metrics.
- This libertarian think tank, to a degree, is just making stuff up, and somehow the Nordics win here, as well.
- People seem to love to claim those countries are Not Socialist for really superficial reasons, or by playing pointless games with categorization.