Only on HN will you see somebody unironically suggest a bidding system for access to a park.
Why not have the same benefits for the national parks? Some are in desperate need of work and financing.
If you were to actually get your wish, you would arrive at a pretty accurate remake of Europe around the 18th or 19th century[0]. Only with money being passed down from generation to generation, not land of title of nobility.
Many of those who didn't quite appreciate the genius and efficiency of this God-given system left Europe in those times to seek their luck in...America!
That wouldn't quite work today, what with no more continents available for settlers, not even those willing to ignore a few existing people already living there.
Which brings us to the second great idea some European at that time had, the guillotine...
0: Not saying that national parks alone would do this. There are actually far more resources that people like you thankfully don't even recognize as escapees from capitalism, to varying degrees. Among those are police protection, basic education, the right to use even crowded sidewalks, clean air and water, etc.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-...
https://taxfoundation.org/income-mobility-and-persistence-mi...
Just a reminder - you are talking about access to a freaking park, and not to a gold mine.
And yet several other countries have free access to national parks, museums etc.
Of course nothing is free. But the question of who pays, when it comes to public lands and public property, is a question of public policy. If the citizens decide that it is important to keep those things available to all, then it is certainly doable. Even in US we have quite a few things like that (e.g. beaches in most states). There's no reason why it can't apply to the parks.
Such systems would point out things people find valuable and encourage entrepreneurs and markets to create and offer alternatives.
I am still interested in hearing why this is such a bad idea (other than not being a very popular one, of course).
I am resigned to the fact that I won't reach Mt Whitney's summit during summer again in my lifetime...
Because it effectively prevents parts of the public from being able access a public resource.
If that isn't enough, think about what happens to the public's opinion of National Parks if most people can't afford to use them. At best the public would likely vote to reverse the new fee structure, at worst you create a public that outright opposes conversation of public land and parks are slowly dismantled.
But I'll concede your second argument because it's politics. Not the first time politics or religion win over rationality either...