Thinking about a point I made in my piece, The Transpartisan Triangle, I'd suggested that if you separate out the tyranny the government meted out on slaves, Native Americans, and women, government has grown since the US's inception.

But, wait a second, is it proper to separate out people who -- by law -- were denied even the most basic rights? Analytically, I'd say No. There certainly were mitigating circumstances -- like "civilized" societies back then had not recognized the equality of these groups with white men. Still, if we do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the burden of government in 1790 vs now, we get an interesting result.

NON-SLAVE MEN: 40% of pop. * 10% government burden = .04
NON-SLAVE WOMEN: 40% of pop * 100% government burden = .4
SLAVES (BOTH GENDERS): 20% of pop. * 100% government burden = .2
(Unable to find data on Native Americans.)

BLENDED GOVERNMENT BURDEN, 1790: 64%
LIBERTY, 1790: 36%

Contrast that with the current levels of government burden of about 40%, leaving us with more or less 60% liberty, much more liberty than in 1790!

Women weren't quite slaves in 1790, so perhaps the 100% burden is high. Even if you halve the estimated burden on the women of 1790, the blended burden is more or less comparable to today's levels.

Food for thought.

-Robert Capozzi