That’s one approach, I guess, but I didn’t take Gard’s point to be that there’s no such thing as cultural heritage – or that the only choice is between government management of cultural sites on the one hand versus destruction of those sites on the other.  Rather it seemed to me the point was that, to the degree people value certain sites or artifacts as culturally significant, they can express that valuation through their own voluntary choices and interactions in the free market.  

That being said, if you do ever find yourself in a position to sell the Liberty Bell, let me know.  I’d be more than happy to pay $3500 for the item, because I recognize that it does have cultural significance.  Ownership of the Bell would be a gold mine for me.  I could easily charge admission to visitors (whatever price the market would bear), and I would be willing to risk my own capital because I suspect the revenue generated from tourists would greatly exceed the cost of my initial investment.  I would therefore have a financial incentive to maintain the Bell in good condition.  In addition, if I were to own it privately, only those people who actually desired to see it would have to pay anything for its preservation.  Those who don’t care one way or the other wouldn’t have their money taken from them by force to preserve an item they didn’t value.

Alternatively a charity or trust in the private sector could buy & preserve it

NY is shutting down many of its parks and historical sites and I would rather see them in the hands of private owners instead of the State.