Not surprizingly, this is the goal of the socialists. 

The park in the previous example has been "socialized", in that it is (at least in theory) "owned" by the masses.

In fact, the "masses" excercise no authority over the park.  They can't even use it unless those in control (the city council, or parks commission) permit that use, and yet they are compelled to pay all costs arising from its acquisition, maintenance and use.

Socialized property invariably gives rise to conflict.  The conflict ceases only when those in the masses admit and accept that they are merely the puppets or the slaves of the state -- or more accurately, slaves of those who themselves wield the legally legitimitized power of the organizational entity known as government.

The "state" ACTS as though it is the owner in fact of such property, even though everything is paid for by the work and/or confiscated wealth of the "masses".

IF our purpose is indeed to maximize human well-being, how on earth can this be properly done by converting free men (decision makers) into enslaved non-decision makers?  How can we maximize human well-being by increasing the areas in which conflict will be most likely to occur?

One of the prime differences between private ownership (control by individuals as well as joint ownership arrangements) and collective ownership (control by "spokesmen" for the masses), is now revealed for what it is.