How would parks exist if not for the state?
Question 85 in Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded
This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, launching June 2026 in paperback, PDF, and Kindle. Subscribe to this Substack so you don’t miss updates, previews, and the launch announcement.
It might initially seem like the state is necessary to protect certain kinds of natural resources, but how can we expect a government that mismanages practically everything to maintain a complex ecosystem? We can observe from the history of state-managed ecology projects that the government is far better at destroying than preserving. Besides, private parks already exist in various forms. From small private campsites to massive amusement parks (hey, they call them parks for a reason!), we can see that private ownership of land and the freedom to use it in entrepreneurial ways can surely allow for the development of the equivalent of any “government” park. Some parks, like Bryant Park in New York City, will be open to the public and run by private foundations, funded by donations from individuals and businesses. Some will be attached to businesses to encourage people to become customers of that business and to serve the community. Some will have subscription services or entry fees like a country club. The state is simply not necessary to ensure that parks stay solvent and operational.