I'll admit I don't know much about the government of Sweden but aren't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Legislation_(Sweden) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Sweden an analogue of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Sweden is second in the world behind Norway for income equality (one of the most import factors in encouraging entrepreneurship), has one of the highest rates of entrepreneurship of OECD countries (much higher than the U.S.), is number one in the world in terms of gender equality, has the 4th highest life expectancy in the world (The U.S. is 33rd), has the fifth lowest infant mortality rate in the world (less than half that of the U.S.), and is within 10% of the U.S. in terms of GDP per capita.

According to the most recent data I can find (2012) Sweden is fifth in the world in terms of tax percentage of GDP. Considering Sweden is top 5 in almost every indicator I can think of, that seems pretty reasonable to me, and I would not hesitate to call that best of class service.

How can you simultaneously claim that "The largest redistribution of wealth have been due to voluntary membership in trade unions and individuals exercising their right to choose employer."

While also making the claim that you can't simply up and move because "Your home, family, friends, culture, job and probably a big part of your identity will be left behind".

If there is only one or very few employers in your area what real right do you have to choose your employer? Your indictment of the Social contract is equally an indictment of the Free Market.

Also you're going to need some evidence to back up claims like "The major advancements in living standards and job creation have largely been due to technological improvements, free market capitalism, enterprises and entrepreneurs." If you'll take at look at the industrial revolution you'll notice almost all infant industries were subsidized, several key technological developments that helped lead to the industrial revolution were spurred by government intervention (e.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_chronometer), and patents were really enforced for the first time to encourage entrepreneurship and strangle competition from competing countries.

As for the government using force to break up strikes. I can only speak to U.S. history, but I can't think of an instance where the government stepped in (with violence) before the strike turned violent. I can think of several far more egregious applications of violence by private industries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matewan_Massacre

And in fact, it was the government which codified the right of unions to strike, preventing private enterprise's unjustified use of violence (or at least attempting to). Unions pretty much wouldn't exist today if it weren't for government protection.

Also, I'm sorry but anarchists reject the use of force in all forms, they would not support any hierarchical forms of power (in a lot of cases that includes any capitalist system, and no anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists). Let's call it what it is, Libertarianism.