What's the solution, though? You're criticizing "accepting corporate monopolization of what should be a public resource," which is fair, but you're also ignorin

What's the solution, though? You're criticizing "accepting corporate monopolization of what should be a public resource," which is fair, but you're also ignoring the actual problem that we have a public resource that can only handle an amount of utilization that is less than demand. We need a system to allocate demand. The post you're responding to isn't saying these things are good, but it's taking the practical perspective that the current system is better than what existed before and probably better than what the government would produce itself. It's easy to say that we shouldn't accept involving corporations in this way, and it's easy to say bureaucratic waste/theft should be punished. I think most people here would agree with you in a theoretical perspective. The problem is that we have to deal with the constraints of the real world, which the parent post addresses and you ignore. I'd invite you not to ignore them and just criticize, and instead to propose a solution - what do you think is the right way to allocate usage of national parks and related service that does not involve private corporations and also avoids bureaucratic waste?