Half of Hong Kong's population lives in public housing, as does 82% of Singapore's population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

Which probably reflects that people are more willing to be exposed to market fluctuations when their basic necessities are met by the state.

If they didn't do that, everyone who wasn't rich would be forced out of those cities, or would have to live with their parents and not have any kids (in Singapore's case). It has more to do with the unregulated market that public housing was necessary (and in Singapore, it really isn't the public housing you are used to).

"Basic necessities are met by the state" and "most people live in public housing" are pretty antithetical to libertarianism, aren't they?

Economic freedom is very underrated compared freedom of political expression. There are many ways in which Singaporeans are much more free than we are.

Economic freedom (which I'm presuming means "lower taxes"?) isn't much use to you if you're executed for possessing drugs, or indefinitely detained without charge, need a permit to assemble, can't criticize the government, etc.

> if you're executed for possessing drugs, or indefinitely detained without charge, need a permit to assemble, can't criticize the government, etc.

Erm, all those things(+) can, and do, happen in 'free' countries. They're just not officially sanctioned and are reported differently. If you were to look at this objectively (without depending on just the official figures) I'd say per capita, human rights abuse / exploitation is worse in the US than Singapore.

(+) and worse, eg: get executed for being the wrong color at the wrong time and place

OK... but I never claimed the US to be a "libertarian paradise", either. Neither the US nor Singapore could be, by any stretch of imagination, accurately deemed "libertarian paradises".

>> libertarian paradises

Probably he/she meant to type authoritarian paradise ;)