"The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action."
--Wikipedia, Tragedy of the Commons
Who doesn't love a good campout? I mean, the kind where you can pitch a tent wherever you want, build a bonfire, make as much noise as you want, hunt, fish, maybe even drink or smoke whatever you want (for those so inclined), and as long as you're a decent human being, leave the place in better condition than you found it. It used to be easy to find government parks where you could do this, if only for the lack of rangers to enforce what little regulations existed. If you've been to a popular state or national park lately, you know that they don't allow that kind of camping. In the Park Ranger's defense, this is because there are so many people wanting to camp in these parks that they would trample the grassland, chop down all of the trees for firewood, catch all of the fish, and have more bullets whizzing through the air than the average war zone. We, the "individual users acting independently," would deplete or spoil the resource through our collective actions. But then, by forcing the parks to be so highly controlled, with rules and regulations that eliminate all the fun, and campsites packed together side-by-side with designated parking and tent, and fire areas (if you're not limited to propane camp stoves), have we not already spoiled the resource? The other problem is, not everybody likes to camp, or is able to, or has the time and resources to, but everybody pays for our parks, through our taxes.
How do we privatize parks, while making them available to everybody, or at least, almost everybody, those who are willing and able to support them?
Private parks exist. The most obvious examples are amusement parks, but except for the fact that they exist as private enterprises, they don't really fit into this discussion. There are private RV parks, with as many RVs crammed into as little space as possible. To me, that isn't camping, either. It's just parking. A few private campgrounds that are actually worth going to do exist, but they are rare. I would name the Caverns of Sonora as an example, but there are others. Philmont Scout Ranch is one of the finest private camping areas in the world, but it is only open to a select group: the Boy Scouts (which organization owns it).
The "free-est" campground available is probably a "Deer Lease," where you pay for permission to hunt deer on private land, that is remote enough to have a good deer population. Unless otherwise specified, it's usually taken for granted that you will be camping, building a campfire, probably having some alcohol at your deer camp. (The partying usually happens after the hunt, as not to scare off the deer.) There might be a game warden coming by, mostly to check that you're obeying hunting laws, but you might want to be careful about what you're smoking when he drives up. The property owner mostly only cares that you leave the site as clean as you found it, and that you don't shoot any of his livestock.
Economically, what would it take, to get more "deer lease" kind of camping on the market, even if deer hunting wasn't involved? The property owner would probably like to make a modest profit, not get sued if there was an accident, and not have his ranch trashed or burnt down. I would obviously understand some rules in a contractual agreement.
Again, our state and national parks are there, but they aren't as fun as they used to be. Do better options exist? I'm hoping that this will be a conversation starter.