The reason your plan violates voluntaryist property ethic is because it would, among other things, by default prohibit homesteading of unowned lands. The electoral process is also not a legitimate means by which to acquire authority or ownership of property according to voluntaryist property ethic (not debatable, simply by definition it is not) and the arbitrary assignment of national parks to boards of directors as non-profits, whilst keeping them "open to the public" (as per your platform) necessitates that those with most direct objective link (those living on and around the lands, already mixing their labor with them) to the property could not turn them into private property via homesteading.
I'd love to debate this. Lots of folks on Steemit want to see a debate regarding this issue as well. See my formal invitation here. Instead of just dismissing me and calling me an "ignorant and annoying troll," why not step up and defend your ideas and plans, if they truly are compatible with voluntaryist property ethic? If they are not, then why use that label?
Waiting for your reply.
-Graham Smith