Not a libertarian, but Japan apparently has 16 private railway companies, most of which are profitable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Japan#Major_...

The US would count as a small state by most OECD averages, so assuming by quality of life you mean, 'high GDP and standards of living', Texas would be a fairly good counter-example of a successful small state. I don't think there are many people in the libertarian mainstream who would suggest shrinking government revenue to below ~15-20% of GDP (US average is currently ~27%, Gary Johnson only recommended a 3% reduction in his presidential run [0]), so if you're only interested in refuting the lunatic fringe, then you can probably stop reading now.

To answer your question more scientifically, a preponderance of the evidence does suggest that countries with smaller governments as a percent of GDP do experience higher growth in standard of living [1]. So if your goal is to maximize long term standards of living, you would tend to support a relatively smaller government than is common among rich countries today.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/no-not-... [1] https://taxfoundation.org/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth

Let's be honest, there are not that many examples to choose from.

What I like about China is, it illustrates how effective a mostly benevolent dictatorship is. It is the optimal political system imho, provided it remains benevolent of course, which is no small feat.

Provided they don't trip and fall, if China is not the absolute supreme leader of the planet in 25 - 50 years I will be shocked.

Galt Automotive have just announced a huge new factory in Somalia.