<p>Yes, you’re certainly correct, it was not a pure laissez-faire. However, economic interference is not a simple “on/off” switch - there are definite gradients. And, when you compare a tax burden of 6% in 1900 with today’s 30%, I think it’s obvious which is closer to economic freedom. Also, I believe that a “‘true’ separation of state and economics” is impossible, because as long as a state protects property rights, it will perforce have some interference, albeit probably a small one, in the economy.</p>