There is a difference between laws based on principle, and laws based on observation. I think Singapore has been a model based on empirical observation -- tightly controlled, but prosperous and happy (vague terms, admittedly), despite what most people think (I think most of the people on HN hating on Singapore have actually never been there, let alone know anyone from there).
Contrast this with the USA, whose laws are (supposedly -- it has been much more complex since the Great Depression) based on principle, on a Western logic that, I believe, still holds strong. It is beautiful, as many writers have shown. In past years I have been a great appreciator of this, having held strong libertarian and even anarcho-capitalist values (not a part of the Ayn Rand hype train, I assure you).
But politico-economic systems are much more complex, human nature so rich, that logic and rhetoric cannot fully capture, perhaps ever. As of late I've read a bit more into histories of Communism in the last 100 years, looked at alternative systems of government. And I just don't think the victory and purity of Western idealism -- that it is the One Way, the Only Way -- is as valid as most of us think. There is that banal idea that "Communism works on paper, but not in reality", but I am gradually leaning towards replacing "Communism" with Capitalism.
I know we cannot really compare the Nordic models of governance with Singapore, but I think they, like Singapore, also incorporate many political ideas based on empirical observation, rather than stubborn insistence of value systems.
Unfortunately even the USA isn't so pure. There are so many systems of principles now, that clash all the time -- and they themselves have changed drastically from the USA of 100 years ago. Thus the Libertarian argument still stands. I think the question is, does that Argument even matter?