(Mises)—Economic progress is sometimes seen as inimical to the bonds of “family, faith, and flag” that many people value. Many place such a high priority on their way of life within their own neighborhoods or communities, that losing their traditional cultural values in exchange for economic progress may not be a price they would wish to pay. This is poignantly expressed by John Slaughter, in his article “How Does it Profit the South,” as “a tinge of sorrow” about the changing heart of his own state, Alabama.
Yet, the heart of Alabama is changing, and I cannot help but feel a tinge of sorrow as I witness the transformation unfolding before my eyes. The small farms that dotted the landscape have been gradually replaced by sprawling subdivisions, where rows of characterless houses emerge almost overnight. The charming service stations, where old men used to pass the time with stories of old, now yield to the yellow-black glow of Dollar General, emblematic of the creeping homogenization brought about by modernity.
Economic progress cannot be separated from cultural values in understanding the history of any society. This message was frequently emphasized by the great development economist Peter Bauer who studied economic progress in Africa extensively. Unlike many economists, Bauer noticed that economic progress called for tradeoffs with other values that African societies held dear. For example, he argued that if African societies placed no value on private property rights and wished instead to hold all property in common, that was their choice, and they should be free to make it. Economic progress in Africa was championed by Western governments and global institutions such as the World Bank, who attached no significance to African culture and had no concerns about destroying African village life.
Bauer’s friend, Anthony Daniels, met him in Africa and understood the importance of these principles to Bauer’s economic thought. As Daniel explains, Bauer was particularly against “the politicisation of life that foreign aid promoted.” Globalist economists created the impression that economic success lay in the gift of foreign governments, and that Africans therefore had to adopt Western culture and Western political priorities in order to benefit from foreign aid as a path to economic advancement. Bauer was against this, and emphasized the importance of cultural values in explaining people’s economic choices. The example Daniels gives is: “If one were to learn that the construction of skyscrapers in the Vatican would promote Italian economic growth, who, other than a barbarian, would advocate it?”
Bauer’s approach to economic development in Africa, as explained in his book Dissent on Development, emphasized that “economic development depends largely on determinants which cannot readily be analysed with the tools of economic theory.” This argument reflects, in part, a point made by Ludwig von Mises, in his book Liberalism, that market exchange is not the sum total of the human experience. The fact that economics is a value-free science does not mean that human values are unimportant. As Mises explained, the fact that market exchange cannot address people’s “inner, spiritual and metaphysical needs,” the human yearning for “happiness and contentment” is not a failing of economic science, but a failing of those who look to economic science or social policy to answer these “deeper and nobler” questions. They are looking in the wrong place. Not all questions are economic questions. Mises’s discussion of this point is worth quoting at some length, in order to convey accurately the point he is trying to make:
Liberalism has often been reproached for this purely external and materialistic attitude toward what is earthly and transitory. The life of man, it is said, does not consist in eating and drinking. There are higher and more important needs than food and drink, shelter and clothing. Even the greatest earthly riches cannot give man happiness; they leave his inner self, his soul, unsatisfied and empty. The most serious error of liberalism has been that it has had nothing to offer man’s deeper and nobler aspirations.
But the critics who speak in this vein show only that they have a very imperfect and materialistic conception of these higher and nobler needs. Social policy, with the means that are at its disposal, can make men rich or poor, but it can never succeed in making them happy or in satisfying their inmost yearnings. It is not from a disdain of spiritual goods that liberalism concerns itself exclusively with man’s material well-being, but from a conviction that what is highest and deepest in man cannot be touched by any outward regulation. It seeks to produce only outer well-being because it knows that inner, spiritual riches cannot come to man from without, but only from within his own heart. It does not aim at creating anything but the outward preconditions for the development of the inner life.
That was also Bauer’s view. He explicitly avoided formulating a “general theory of development” that could solve all of Africa’s economic problems, unlike the hubristic World Bank economists who insisted they had the cure for all Africa’s ills. Bauer understood that the fix for economic progress may well resolve economic problems, but economic problems are not the only problems society faces, nor are they always the most important problems.
Indeed, it could be argued that cultural problems, such as the breakdown of the family unit and the disdain for education, are much greater determinants of poverty than the failing economic institutions. This was a point often made by the great economist Walter E. Williams. In relation to the West, Bauer argued that the sense of moral and racial “guilt” that plagues many Westerners is itself the cause of many economic disasters in Africa. Therefore, Daniels is correct to observe that Bauer viewed economic development within its cultural context:
That Peter’s thought was not unidimensional, let me mention here that he did not think of economic development as necessarily an unequivocal good, that people the world over ought to aim at single-mindedly. This is because there is rarely gain without loss, and people may, with reason, care more about their losses than for their gains.
Daniels further explains that Bauer had a rounded view of the nature of man:
Though [Bauer] did believe in free trade and a liberal economy he was certainly not a believer in Homo economicus, far from it. The undifferentiated man who considers only his narrow economic interest, which he calculates with perfect rationality, did not exist for Peter. He did not think that in a world in which restraints on economic life were removed (if one were able even to envisage such a world) differences between individuals and groups would disappear or die out.
Therefore, it must be acknowledged that in pursuit of the peaceful cooperation necessary for market exchange, there are many social and cultural values still worthy of being acknowledged and defended. Murray Rothbard reflects this idea, in part, when he reminds libertarians of the importance that many people attach to their nation:
Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions. He is generally born into a “country.” He is always born into a specific historical context of time and place, meaning neighborhood and land area.
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.