“... private owners who have a vested interest ...”
And I suppose you believe the same for “private owners” of land along the borders; they should pay for national defense? Your argument suffers from reductio ad absurdum. Every cost of government can be shown to favor a subset of the populace.
Your argument suffers from reductio ad absurdum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No. Your argument is a non-sequitur.
Artwork like a painting or a sculpture has no Constitutional protections, unlike our national borders.
Private property is protected already. Artwork would merely be a type of property. It can be insured. It can be bought and sold. It can be protected from theft by laws already on the books for other property.
I really don’t know how your claim applies in this situation at all, unless you somehow don’t understand private property and the advantages of it over government ownership.
Your last line sounds like something a socialist would say.