(Mises)—The right to property is considered a fundamental human right, recognized worldwide, as stated in international human rights documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. It is historically linked to natural rights. The Declaration of the Rights of Man regarded property as “an inviolable and sacred right.”
According to Shane Courtland, Gerald Gaus and David Schmidtz, while classical liberals agree on the importance of private property, their views range from nearly anarchist to those advocating for significant state involvement. Nonetheless, property rights are generally seen as first-generation rights, intended to limit state power, and protect individuals from expropriation.
In contrast, the emergence of the social state has led to a relativization of individual rights in favor of alleged collective rights, aiming for the so-called “social justice.” This shift means that, although property rights remain “fundamental,” they are now subject to numerous limitations and conditions, diminishing their absolute nature. Modern constitutions, like the Brazilian Constitution in several articles reflect these restrictions, suggesting that property is now a relative right rather than an absolute one.
Real-world examples, such as Brazil’s low score on the Economic Freedom Index regarding property rights and legal constraints on property ownership—classified as “repressed,” with a score of 49.1 out of 100—illustrate these limitations. Issues like land expropriation without due compensation in Brazil and even the Executive Order 6102 in the US further demonstrate the constraints placed on property rights.
Monetary Assets as an Expression of Property
Precious metals and other commodities played a significant role in the evolution of money, as the use of widely-demanded goods facilitated the emergence of exchange mediums, as Carl Menger explained. The rise of financial intermediaries contributed to the universalization of exchange methods. Over time, states began to control money, establishing regulations and creating currency. The final abandonment of the gold standard in the US in 1971 marked a shift to fiat money, backed solely by political trust.
Fernando Ulrich points out that individuals have long been restricted in their choice of currency, being compelled to use state-issued money that is often devalued. Friedrich von Hayek criticized governments for failing to provide sound money and abusing their powers when not constrained by the gold standard. In any case, given its benefits as a medium of exchange, money remains a primary expression of property rights, granting holders significant power over other market assets, both in the present and across time, as stated by Menger.
Disadvantages of State-Controlled Currency
Friedrich von Hayek argued that monetary policy is a significant cause of economic instability, noting that managing public finances and regulating currency are often conflicting goals. The combination of these tasks under the same authority has led to disastrous consequences, making money a primary driver of economic fluctuations and facilitating uncontrolled public spending. Hayek stresses the urgency of separating fiscal and monetary policies to preserve a functioning market economy and individual freedom.
Another issue with state monopoly over currency is the erosion of individual control over money. State regulation can impose restrictions on currency usage. Hayek warns that government control over international currency and capital movement threatens both the global economy and personal freedom. Historical instances, like the confiscation of individual savings in Brazil or confiscation of gold in the US, exemplify these risks. Saifedean Ammous links fiat currency issues to the relativization of property rights, asserting that individuals never fully control state money; they merely possess it at the government’s discretion.
Bitcoin and Its Impact on Contemporary Legal Order
The shift from gold standard to fiat currency has allowed unchecked state monetary issuance and debt. Friedrich von Hayek argued that while historical government control of money seemed justified, it has led to significant problems, including monopolistic practices that limit consumer choice.
Recent technological advancements, particularly the emergence of Bitcoin and its blockchain system, challenge this monopoly by enabling the creation of “private currencies,” allowing the proposal of Hayek to become true. Bitcoin operates as a digital asset that does not rely on state control or centralized control of any kind and offers individuals a means to manage their financial assets without intermediaries.
Bitcoin is a scarce digital asset, as it exists uniquely within its blockchain, which prevents double-spending. Its supply is regulated by a decentralized network (with thousands of nodes worldwide that are also responsible for the network integrity), ensuring that it cannot be manipulated like fiat currency. Bitcoin can serve as a store of value, and its market acceptance reinforces its utility as money.
Transactions can occur in a peer-to-peer (P2P) manner or through exchanges, although the latter introduces intermediaries, slightly undermining one of Bitcoin’s core principles. However, users can transfer their holdings to private wallets to regain that direct control.
In that sense, Bitcoin provides absolute ownership and control over assets, embodying the purest form of property rights. It operates independently of state backing, allowing individuals to use it as money regardless of official currency definitions. True economic freedom requires the ability to negotiate based on mutually-agreed terms without government monopoly on currency issuance.
Conclusion
The decentralized nature of Bitcoin, stored across a global network, enhances its independence from state authority, reaffirming classical property rights. The emergence of Bitcoin and its blockchain structure revitalizes property rights, providing a crucial point of resistance against repeated violations and relativizations of these rights, bringing them closer to their classical concept of being inviolable.
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.