Which is roughly what I was going to say. It's less of a rebuttal of the Nordic model and more an opinion piece on the relationship between GDP and libertarianism. It's also pretty light on relevant statistics like those I mentioned.
To extend a little bit further from this initial point, let's take the second of your sources. Disregarding the complete lack of proper peer review given the author's proclivity for avoiding critique from fellow economists, what I've garnered from a quick skim-read of both Man, Economy and State and Power and Market is that they're not really objective analyses of economic systems. They're arguments in support of a defined philosophical point of view, with the economic theory shoe-horned in around this. This brings me back to my earlier point about objective versus subjective morality. Both of these works seem to rely on the reader making the basic assumption that taxation, direction or other government influences in macro and microeconomics are fundamentally immoral. They appeal to an individual who already possesses a defined perspective on the subject rather than forming rational, logical and empirical analyses. This, I would hazard, is why Rothbard shies away from proper academic critique- he writes not from the analytical perspective of someone who assesses and compares systems on an empirical and rational basis, but from the philosophical and moral perspective of someone who holds a personal view on an issue and wishes to support that view with evidence, much of which is sadly speculative and totally devoid of actual objective merit.
Rothbard is, generally speaking and being as polite as one can, a bit of an oddball, which is probably why he never got very much academic credence and was never really recognised as one of the greatest economic minds. A historical revisionist, proponent of retributive justice, supporter of torture on principle and hostile towards the civil rights movement, he really didn't seem to possess any cohesive theory on personal liberty versus state monopoly. He actively supported the use of the state monopoly on violence to deny rights to minorities in favour of maintaining the apparent property rights of landowners, but in reality the status quo in the balance of power, in favour of the white male- which suggests to me that far from being a proponent of individualist economic theory über alles that his supporters imply, he only supported this principle when it personally benefited him and his social peers. More generally speaking, Austrian School economics tends to be reflected on badly in objective or empirical discussion of economic theory because it tends to eschew such niceties as actual statistical analysis or proper empiricism in favour of snowball and slippery slope fallacies, hypothetical situations, post hoc, ergo propter hoc and style over substance fallacies applied to other theories to discredit them, when in reality the main reason that there's no real empirical backing for most of the Austrian school of economics is primarily because, like pure Communism or anarcho-capitalism, it's totally unworkable.
In short, he's no Thomas Schelling or Robert Aumann.