Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Then there is the further question which pertains to "How" these venues
got into private hands.

And yet another question: Is the public good or public interest being
served by having these venues in private hands?

Private property is private only so long as the state deems it to be
private.

frtzw906