Again, I think it should be decided by the people. First the citizens of Wyoming, for instance, should agree that Yellowstone be preserved for all future generations and not be privatized. And then there should be a national referendum of the people to support it as a National Park or preserve. Once that passes, then there is no problem with Yellowstone being fundedf by the people's treasury from now on. It is their choice and not a power given to the government to do on its own initiative.
I love Yellowstone, I worked there in my late teens and embraced it.
But you have the wrong idea. I worked for a concession company in Old Faithful Lodge as a waiter. It was a government contract so there was no competition. We served crappy food at outrageous prices. People paid because they had no other option. Bribes to the right government hacks ensured the company looter rights.
Once you left the park and went into West Yellowstone (Montana,) things changed - for the better. There was no destruction of the lands, but the roads were maintained and there was competition for services. Lodging was cheaper and eating establishments plentiful.
Yellowstone is an example of everything that's wrong with government ownership. I assure you that Disney or other private owners would not have let the park burn, the way the idiot envirowackos of the department of interior did.
83% of Yellowstone is not accessible to humans. Of the 17% that is, this includes the wilderness areas. Yellowstone would be far better off if it were privatized.
There are so many wonderful national treasures that should be preserved for all generations. Carlsbad Caverns, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Mt. Rushmore, etc.
The question is whether the government is the only, or even the best steward of these assets.
And I think we all see those as national treasures and do not mind a small amount of our taxes going to maintain, preserve, and protect them. The Federal Government can always petition the people and sell them on the concept. But ultimately it should be the will of the people and not the prerogative of the governent to set aside public lands.
There are no "public" lands. There are government lands. The government owns and controls these lands. The public has no say at all over them.
But a courthouse and the lawn surrounding it certainly something the local people would choose. We've all probably voted on bond issues to build or update or add on to the local courthouse. But it belongs to the people. And they should be able to put a creche on it if they want one.
Honestly, I think courthouses are a place that issues of law should be decided. I object to them being ornate mansions erected to honor our ruling caste.
The government as the Founders envisioned it would be a good steward of those public lands set aside to be preserved for all posterity. So though I believe you that mismanagement has occurred, I do not believe that has to be the norm. I always look beyond the what is to the what should be or what could be or what will be.
As for that local courthouse, we can't have it both ways. Short of violating the legal and unalienable rights of others, the people are either free to form whatever sort of society they wish to have, or the government decides that for them. If most of the people feel as you do about the courthouse, they will vote not to adorn it with a creche (or anything else.) And the will of the people in that regard should prevail. But it should be the people who built and funded and utilize that courthouse who should decide it and not the ACLU or somebody in Washington.
If the majority of the people enjoy and are happy having the creche on the courthouse lawn, then they should be free to have it. That also should not be decided by somebody in the next town or in the State House or in Washington or the ACLU.