Ironically, Icelandic leaders like David Oddsson were probably victims of their initial success in applying "libertarian" policies towards their own country.
On a deep sociological level, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for Icelanders to promote various forms of libertarianism for their own kind, since their innate Nordic character traits fulfill so many libertarian preconditions. Libertarianism generally assumes that most people are sufficiently honest, rational, entrepreneurial, and intelligent to make up a viable decentralized economic and political system. It also very important that the majority of the population possess many other character traits, such as chivalrousness, individualism, industriousness, respect for private property rights, and a highly altruistic capacity for responsible citizenship.
In other words, the general citizenry must have an innate tendancy to act in the exact opposite manner than the very negative way in which the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion characterizes gentiles. Although The Protocols were written by the Zionist Asher Ginsberg in the 19th century, they reflect a very negative view of gentiles still held by Zionists like George Soros, the leaders of Goldman Sachs, the Rothschilds of the City of London, Mossad-CIA, and other actors. These negative views can become a self-fulfilling prophecy as these entities infiltrate, corrupt, loot, race-mix, and otherwise destabilize societies like Iceland. The Protocol I section "What We Believe" states:

People are basically evil by nature. The bad people in this world far outnumber the good. So the best form of government is not one that holds reasoned discussions with its people, but one that uses tyranny.
Most people would gladly become an all-powerful dictator and sacrifice the well-being of others for their own benefit.

As I discuss in my online environmental vs. genetics article, the Nordic peoples have been shaped by tens if not hundreds of thousands of years under dispersed conditions in hard, cold environments. They generally lived on family farms or in small fishing villages in homogeneous, tribal societies. This environment favored rational innovation, delayed gratification, and individual self-sufficiency for survival. Relative to most other societies throughout history, Nordic societies have always been characterized by having relatively large middle classes of land-owning, armed free men. They have always experienced a high degree of political decentralization where common values, to include a strong sense of personal honor, were reinforced at the grass roots by a common folk culture.
Please refer to Appendix I of Part 6, which provides an extract from Chapter One of Racial Realities in Europe by Dr. Lothrop Stoddard. He provides important additional background on the character and history of Nordic peoples.

The first settlers to Iceland came from Norway in the 9th century A.D. The society created by these Norsemen was probably the closest that any society has ever come in human history towards fulfilling libertarian ideals on a sustainable basis. See for example the article " Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government" by Thomas Whiston, Mises Daily, 25 Dec 2002, which claims there was no public property in early Iceland.
The Althing created by Norsemen at Thingvellir (Parliament Plains) survived for centuries as one of the most enduring examples of republican government in Western history. Such "Things" were part of a broader pattern in Scandinavia. Parliamentary systems were common wherever Nordic peoples predominated in ancient or medieval times. Examples included governments in ancient Greece and Roman (prior to the rise of the Hellenistic and Roman Empires), the cortes created by Visigoths in Spain, parliaments created by Anglo Saxons in Britain, the republic created by Helvetians in Switzerland, city state republics created by Nordic Lombards in northern Italy, and the Novgorod and Kievan republics created by the Scandinavian Viking "Rus" who gave "Russia" its name.
Icelanders refer to themselves as a Nordic people, but the underlying genetic reality may actually be more complicated. "The Origins of the Icelanders" by the Sigurður Nordal Institute, notes:

The first results to come out of the research, which is being done by DeCode in collaboration with the University of Oxford, indicate that 63% of Icelandic female settlers were of Celtic origin and had ancestral lines traceable to the British Isles. On the other hand, only about 37% of them were of Nordic origins. However, the research into male Y-chromosomes (inherited via the male line) revealed that a much greater percentage of male settlers were of Nordic origins, or 80%, and 20% have origins which can be traced to the British Isles.

Regardless of its exact makeup, there seems to be an urge towards decentralization, chivalrous behavior, and rugged individualism in the DNA of societies with majority Nordic demographics.
Many Americans have been brainwashed by Jewish Hollywood to confuse "Nordic" with "Nazi," particularly since Hitler admired Nordic peoples. This such an important issue that I need to digress for a moment to explain the relationship between "Nordic" and such historical entities as the Third Reich, Roman Empire, and Roman Republic.
According to Dr. Lothrop Stoddard's Racial Realities in Europe, Germany transitioned from being majority Nordic to majority Alpine populations around the 17th century. (See Appendix I to Part 6, or Chapter 6 "Alpinized Germany" from the full online version of the book). Stoddard viewed Alpines as being heavily predisposed towards authoritarianism. As the percentage of Alpines grew in the German population over time, Stoddard saw a clear trend towards more authoritarianism in German social and political institutions. Racial Realities in Europe, published in 1924, eerily predicted that Germany would fall into the hands of those strong-willed enough to master her.
Many key elements of Nazi pageantry, to include massed displays of the stiff-armed salute and the emperor-like Fuhrer dictatorship concept, were inspired more by the Roman imperial era than the era of the Roman Republic that preceeded it.
Having said all of this, now I need to compare the Roman Republic with the Roman Empire. According to Roger Pearson in "The Fall of Ancient Rome," The Roman Republic was founded around 509 B.C. principally by members of Nordic-Italic tribes who had migrated south from northern Europe and formed the core of the patrician and free farmer classes. Over time they began to drop class, ethnic, and citizenship barriers towards alien peoples. An important milestone in this process was the Lex Licinia that opened high office to local plebes in 367 BC.
By the time Julius Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic for good when his army crossed the Rubicon in 49 B.C., and the Empire was officially founded in 27 B.C., Rome had largely lost its Nordic racial character. Sociologically, major elements of Roman society were transitioning away from land-owning Nordic free farmers and towards mixed-race slave plantations. They were also moving away from self-sufficient homogeneous tribal villages towards large multi-ethnic urban centers with swarming masses who were provided state-supported bread and circuses.
As an aside, it is worth mentioning that the Nordic decline process was delayed and complicated somewhat by continued "trickle down genetics" where Nordic and Celtic groups from northern Europe continually headed south and reinvorgorated Rome with new blood. One example is ancient Galatia in present day Turkey, formed by Celts who wandered southeast from present day France. Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this work, some Roman legions were nearly 50% comprised of former German tribesmen. This reminds me of a contemporary American who noted in a book about his experiences in the French Foreign Legion, "There is a saying in the Foreign Legion that it is good down to its last German."
Getting back to Hermann the Cherusci and his Nordic-German tribesmen, it is worth noting that they fought against this new type of Roman imperial "sociology" in their decisive battle of 9 A.D at Teutoberg Forest, not for it .
Wall Street on the Tundra by Michael Lewis, Vanity Fair, April 2004, describes the privatization of the Icelandic fishing industry in recent times, an initiative that became vastly more controversial when it was later applied to banking and international finance:

...One way or another, the wealth in Iceland comes from the fish, and if you want to understand what Icelanders did with their money you had better understand how they came into it in the first place.
...["The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource; The Fishery" (PDF)] was written back in 1954 by H. Scott Gordon, a University of Indiana economist. It describes the plight of the fisherman—and seeks to explain “why fishermen are not wealthy, despite the fact that fishery resources of the sea are the richest and most indestructible available to man.” The problem is that, because the fish are everybody’s property, they are nobody’s property. Anyone can catch as many fish as they like, so they fish right up to the point where fishing becomes unprofitable—for everybody. “There is in the spirit of every fisherman the hope of the ‘lucky catch,’” wrote Gordon. “As those who know fishermen well have often testified, they are gamblers and incurably optimistic.” Fishermen, in other words, are a lot like American investment bankers. Their overconfidence leads them to impoverish not just themselves but also their fishing grounds. Simply limiting the number of fish caught won’t solve the problem; it will just heighten the competition for the fish and drive down profits. The goal isn’t to get fishermen to overspend on more nets or bigger boats. The goal is to catch the maximum number of fish with minimum effort. To attain it, you need government intervention. This insight is what led Iceland to go from being one of the poorest countries in Europe circa 1900 to being one of the richest circa 2000.
Iceland’s big change began in the early 1970s, after a couple of years when the fish catch was terrible. The best fishermen returned for a second year in a row without their usual haul of cod and haddock, so the Icelandic government took radical action: they privatized the fish. Each fisherman was assigned a quota, based roughly on his historical catches. If you were a big-time Icelandic fisherman you got this piece of paper that entitled you to, say, 1 percent of the total catch allowed to be pulled from Iceland’s waters that season. Before each season the scientists at the Marine Research Institute would determine the total number of cod or haddock that could be caught without damaging the long-term health of the fish population; from year to year, the numbers of fish you could catch changed. But your percentage of the annual haul was fixed, and this piece of paper entitled you to it in perpetuity.
Even better, if you didn’t want to fish you could sell your quota to someone who did. The quotas thus drifted into the hands of the people to whom they were of the greatest value, the best fishermen, who could extract the fish from the sea with maximum efficiency. You could also take your quota to the bank and borrow against it, and the bank had no trouble assigning a dollar value to your share of the cod pulled, without competition, from the richest cod-fishing grounds on earth. The fish had not only been privatized, they had been securitized.
It was horribly unfair: a public resource—all the fish in the Icelandic sea—was simply turned over to a handful of lucky Icelanders. Overnight, Iceland had its first billionaires, and they were all fishermen. But as social policy it was ingenious: in a single stroke the fish became a source of real, sustainable wealth rather than shaky sustenance. Fewer people were spending less effort catching more or less precisely the right number of fish to maximize the long-term value of Iceland’s fishing grounds. The new wealth transformed Iceland—and turned it from the backwater it had been for 1,100 years to the place that spawned Björk. If Iceland has become famous for its musicians it’s because Icelanders now have time to play music, and much else. Iceland’s youth are paid to study abroad, for instance, and encouraged to cultivate themselves in all sorts of interesting ways. Since its fishing policy transformed Iceland, the place has become, in effect, a machine for turning cod into Ph.D.’s.

This passage may create an overly simplistic impression for certain readers that "privatization" automatically translates into increased prosperity across society. This is not true. There have been cases in certain countries where natural resources get "privatized" and only a few get rich while the rest of society gets impoverished and feels "ripped off." Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson of the Orthodox Nationalist talk show has heavily criticized "privatizations" in Russia under Boris Yeltsin or the George Soros-sponsored "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine under Viktor Yushchenko. To intelligently discuss any privatization program, one always needs to look under the hood and not only examine in detail the dynamics of particular industries in question, but also the real character the key players involved in the "privatization" process, to include Zionists and government officials. Under Yeltsin, Zionist oligarchs grabbed control of major oil resources, looted wealth out of the country, and corrupted government leaders. Before we can intelligently discuss the pros and cons of Iceland's privatization of its fishing industry, we must perform a deeper sociological analysis that compares Iceland with very different experiences around the world.
On top of all this, there are many different types of "group property" as well as many types of "private property." They all come with their own characteristics and mix of advantages and disadvantages. A failure to make the right distinctions can cause one to compare apples to oranges. Please see my continued discussion of "group property" vs. "private property" in Appendix II in Part 6.
"The Author of Revolution, an interview with Einar Már Gudmundsson," by Jonas Moody, 2008 winter issue of Iceland Review, 6 Feb 2009 online, explains how positive political feelings about the privatization of domestic fishing later got misapplied to international investment banking cabals:

Jonas Moody: We seem to be in the midst of Iceland’s economic crisis, but where do you see the beginning of the story?
Einar Már Gudmundsson: We can trace this back to 2002 or thereabouts when the banks are privatized—they’re essentially put in the hands of certain individuals chosen by politicians and given free rein. There was a glaring lack of supervision with no guidelines laid down. These people were meant to have guaranteed the system themselves, and used this as justification to give themselves absurdly high salaries. But then they’re not willing to shoulder the responsibility when it comes down to it. Instead, they dump it on the nation. As economist Vilhjálmur Bjarnason says, it was about 20 to 30 people who got themselves into the debt that our nation of 300,000 now has to bear.
JM: But Iceland’s heritage is founded on egalitarianism—the original Nordic democracy of fishermen and farmers. What changed in the nation’s mentality to open the door to these changes?
EMG: It has undoubtedly been this policy of libertarianism, this mentality that creates a religion out of privatization. The movement has been characterized by a cult that preaches how the market will prevail and the invisible hand will deftly control all supply and demand.
JM: And how has this shift in mentality acted on the nation?
EMG: Libertarians have the welfare system in their sites because they view it as a certain agent of socialism. Then you have capitalism with its privatizations: fishing privatized through the quota system, banks privatized and, most recently, attempts to privatize energy—that’s certainly something the IMF is looking at, getting their hands on resources like water and energy, our nature.
JM: What was happening in Iceland to usher in this spirit of libertarianism without greater opposition?
EMG: The labor movement and socialists failed in their roles. The socialists have adopted the libertarian rhetoric—talking about market solutions and privatization. The Social Democrats in Iceland are satisfied with the fishing quota system and everything else in capitalism. At the same time the labor movement has become institutionalized—focusing now on pension funds and administration, instead of fighting for the people behind the movement. This lack of opposition has made it easy for libertarianism to take root without any resistance.

An important close associate of Prime Minister Oddsson, University of Iceland Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, provided intellectual justifications for a new "international" phase of Icelandic "privatization" and "libertarianism."
"Iceland’s Conservatives Try to Rewrite History" by Íris Erlingsdóttir, Huffington Post, 4 Feb 2009, observes:

In 2002, Mr. Gissurarson published How Can Iceland Become the Richest Country in the World?, in which he outlined the opportunities that Iceland would have as an international financial center. Oddsson believed that it was the government's ownership of the banks that was preventing this from happening. `The crucial factor,' he said in a 2004 speech, `was the iron grip that the Icelandic state had on all business activity through its ownership of the commercial banks.'

This move towards "privatization" involved a much more exotic cast of characters than the fishing industry make-over. We see both Oddsson and Gissurarson hobnobbing with Jewish neocon economists such as Milton Friedman and Zionist front men like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush during the years leading up to and immediately following publication of this work.
According to the Wikipedia article on Oddsson, he belonged to a group who "read books and articles by and about Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and James M. Buchanan, who all visited Iceland in the early 1980s and whose messages of limited governments, privatization, and liberalization of the economy had a wide impact ... During his almost 14 years as Prime Minister, Davíð became acquainted with, or friend of, many Western leaders, including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Václav Klaus and Silvio Berlusconi.[citation needed] He has occasionally attended the meetings of the Bilderberg Group, and he has read a paper to the Mont Pelerin Society."
Oddsson's attendance at Bilderberg raises an immediate red flag, because it functions as a Rothschild front organization. In his video documentary ENDGAME: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, Alex Jones condemns the Bilderberg conferences by noting that "Under the Logan Act, it is a felony offense for any member of federal or state government to meet with members of a foreign government without the express authority and authorization of the President or Congress. Put simply, it is illegal for members of the government to meet secretly behind closed doors with foreign power brokers due to the problems of corruption and espionage that it breeds. For this reason, many prominent politicians attend but their names do not appear on the official list."
In this same documentary, Jim Tucker, editor of the American Free Press, remarked: "...I've chased Bilderberg for thirty years. I'll never give up the chase. Bilderberg's plan for the whole world is nothing less than World Government. I'm not comfortable with that at all. Who elected these guys to run the planet? They are the elitists. They feel they can run the world for their own selfish interests.."
Leading editors of the Washington Post, CBS, Time, the Wall Street Journal, and other major national media are regular attendees at Bilderberg conferences. These same major media controllers are also active members of other secretive elite organizations such as the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and Hosmer Grove.
Not surprisingly, the 27 Dec 2008 Wall Street Journal article: " The Isle That Rattled the World" had many nice things to say about Bilderberg attendee David Oddsson:

Mr. Oddsson became prime minister in 1991 promising to bring an end to the country's boom-and-bust cycles tied to the fish catch. He blamed the trouble on the state-controlled economy, which put bureaucrats in charge of fishing, the media, even a travel agency.
Within a few years, Iceland had sold off companies worth a combined $2 billion, a big sum for the small economy, says Mr. Gissurarson.
For Mr. Oddsson, what most held Iceland back was government control of banking, which put politicians in the position of determining how capital should be allocated. "The crucial factor," he said in a 2004 speech, "was the iron grip that the Icelandic state had on all business activity through its ownership of the commercial banks."

"x" axis

(Third dimensional "z" axis entailing
"mutualism" vs. "parasitism")
not drawn, see online article)

At this point we need to place the peculiar brand of "libertarianism" and "privatization" espoused by Oddsson, Gissurarson, and their Zionist neocon friends like Milton Friedman on the ideological map to better understand distortions and blind spots.
The biggest problem is that it tends to take a purely "environmental" view of human nature and assumes that all people can learn to respect human rights, keep their promises, and engage in rational profit-seeking in the context of a free market in a way that will optimize long term gain for everyone, to include the maintenance of productive social values.
In reality, as I explain in greater detail in my online Reconciling Opposing Political and Economic Ideologies series, there are strong ethnic and genetic factors that create wide disparities between different human groups when it comes to important economic and political values, to include attitudes towards criminality (parasitism), centralization (authoritarianism), and environmentalism (anti-tribalism).
On top of this, a utopian effort to practice pure "anarcho-libertarianism" can create what game theorists call an "unstable paradigm" that sews the seeds of its own demise or overthrow. As more and more people in a society try to live in accordance with anarcho-libertarian ideals, they tend to become more atomized as rugged individualists. Paradoxically, this may weaken the ability of their society as a whole to defend itself from open attack by an invading army or subversion by highly organized covert intelligence organizations and criminal mafia. Sometimes it takes a large, cohesive army to defend against a large invading force, and the cohesive strength of an organized ethnic group to resist alien mafia infiltration and takeover.
Hence, I believe that sound economic and political policy must take all of the perspectives depicted in the table above into account and understand how they trade off against each other.
The big problem with "environmental" libertarian approaches is that while they may reduce government regulation and increase business growth in the short run, in the long run they risk letting economic control slip into the hands of alien groups who can ultimately do more harm than good to an overall economic and political system. The presence of alien peoples can increase forms of social friction (read: social costs) for the indigenous population. Aliens can also gain control of strategic bases over time and undermine indigenous popular sovereignty on many different levels. Aliens can also use media control to pervert any kind of healthy popular culture, as we see in innumerable cases today where Zionist-controlled national media sneer at traditional American straight white males, promote hardcore pornography, support Third World invasion, applaud "The Death of the West," and push "political correctness" and "cultural Marxism."
Another important Achilles Heel in the libertarianism promoted by Oddsson, Gissurarson, and associates is that it was actually a mixture of "environmental top down" and "environmental bottom up" viewpoints. "Environmental top down" ideologies come in many different permutations that include "liberal fascism," "leftist imperialism," "socialism," "neo-Jacobinism," and even "communism." It is basically the philosophy of runaway big Federal Government and Big Central Bank in America today.
Oddsson's ideology had a major "top down" component because it embraced financial sector expansion both at home and overseas, as well as central bank interventionism. A central bank is all about big government or private banker central planning and subsidy, not libertarianism. Central bank manipulation is form of monopolistic free market interference, totally contrary to the libertarian concept of the free market as a vital source of competitive price information, decentralized economic adjustment, and grass roots entrepreneurial incentives. The very aggressive expansion of Icelandic banks into foreign markets through mergers and acquisitions is a form of financial imperialism and "conquest" that has nothing to do with building businesses through libertarian concepts of grass roots entrepreneurial calculation.
The American Old Right brand of libertarianism advocated by Thomas Jefferson was hostile to the very existence of a central bank, not to mention government manipulation of currency. Early America was on a "free money" system in which the creation of money was kept out of the hands of politicians, and the public generally preferred forms of money tied to gold and silver. Early American libertarians felt that the society should focus the development of science, technology, and industry, and the production of real goods and services, and if anything the financial sector should be decentralized to prevent it from becoming "the tail that wags the dog."
This is analogous to the way Americans have preferred trial by jury in order to decentralize judicial power out of the hands of judges and into the hands of the people. Sometimes one must create forms of regulatory inefficiency in some areas to promote the greater public good in others.
George Washington once stated "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
There is an interesting connection between central banks and standing armies. A central bank can be conceptualized as a "financial war machine" for funding standing armies. Central banks typically have the capability to issue fiat money and expand bank credit --both of which are created out of thin air. This generates inflation by increasing credit and the money supply.
Inflation is a form of taxation. When central bankers expand money and credit behind closed doors without effective oversight by elected government officials --which is the case of the unaudited Federal Reserve Banking System in America today which has not reported M3 money supply growth since 2006 -- this is a form of taxation without representation.
Many politicians and warmongers like to use central banks to finance war because inflating the currency as a consequence of secret meetings is an easier way to tax people than taxing them through an open and honest legislative process of their elected representatives.
Thomas Jefferson once stated: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporation which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
In other words, if someone had published a work such as Professor Gissurarson's How Can Iceland Become the Richest Country in the World? in the era of Thomas Jefferson -- except claiming that America rather than Iceland should become a major international financial power -- the American Old Right would have certainly scorned this proposition. America must stay focused on developing industry, and if anything tightly regulate the financial sector rather than allow financiers to grant themselves special privileges through the creation of a central bank.
Please see Chapter 33 of my Mission of Conscience series where I explore banking and finance issues in the greater depth that they deserve. This includes the long and disturbing history of banker "false flag " operations against the American public, as outlined in the embedded video The Money Masters. This history includes evidence of assassination efforts run against U.S. presidents, to include Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and James Garfield for resistance against the evil schemes of certain private central bankers.
Please also see my special web page "Reconciling Libertarianism vs. Nationalism" where I provide more detailed discussion about ways to balance libertarian principles against the need of a people to determine their own destiny by exercising sovereignty rights, controlling the strategic bases of society, and protecting other vital interests -- a process commonly known as "nationalism.".

Update References, Additional Web Sites

Sex Slavery in Israel at gentilealliance.org