[big_lefty]

I was talking about the liberty of having the government make the decision for you, or not

And what decisions are you claiming the Swedish government makes for its citizens?

Oh yes it is. That is the hing upon which all these discussions are based, peoples standard of living, particularly those at the bottom.

Wha? Now ~all~ discussion are about the SOL?
Let me try this again. We are talking about laws which protect consumers. The purpose of them is to keep people from being harmed, not to improve their SOL.

The Left contends that Nanny should take of all of us, all the time.

Sweeping generalization, hyperbole, cliche, and Genetic Fallacy, as in "the left supports health and safety regulations, the left wants to government to take are of us, so that establishes the folly of health and safety regulations."

The link you were responding to was about regulation, and you asked for an example of how regulation hurts, you got it, and it illustrates exactly what I claimed it would.

Three problems again;

1) Nowhere in the material was a cause and effect relationship established. Correlation is not causation.

2) The material was a biased sample, using only data from Sweden when it was in recession. I pointed this out to you before.

3) It wasn't even established that Sweden's regulations were significantly more extensive. A conclusion cannot follow from an unproven premise.

Therefore, your example illustrates nothing.

Well since our government is destrying our currency in an effort to cover up said recession with the Fed, and since we have a global economy, and were basically in the same recession, I'd say the comparison was very fair in regards to the topic it covers.

But we're talking about data from the mid to late 90s, remember. to get an accurate picture, you'd need data covering a long period of time.
Try getting, say, 20 years of data from both countries. It wold give you a more accurate picture, but it would not establish cause and effect.

BTW, I provided you with today's economic indicators on both countries.
You can see there is no significant difference between Sweden and the US.
So, if we were using your reasoning, that would prove that your conclusion is false. But it actually proves nothing, because evidence of cause and effect is missing.

You know damn well that we were discussing regulation vs non-regulation

Yes, and how, specifically, are you claiming regulation has infringed on liberty in Sweden?
You can't just say "liberty is infringed because there is regulation" and call that an argument.