The Right To Collect

In The Indiana Jones Dilemma, the author discusses the issue of the 'right' to collect. More specifically, when it comes to preserving & owning rare items, is justice done best via museums or private collectors?

Personally, I have little that would qualify as museum quality due to it's rarity -- but then again, there are few official places with collections such that I have. But the question does beg to be asked in the general sense.

While I agree, in general, in a capitalistic measure of 'right' when it comes to bidding & buying power, I do have other concerns. One could assume that a wealthy collector would take proper care of the items, but there are no guarantees. On the other hand, many museums pack everything away, and no one can see it, enjoy it, so what's the point?

Like art, collectibles should be seen, shown and available. A Renoir in a private home may seem offensive to you, but isn't that better than sitting in some museum storage area, preserved but not on display because it's a 'lesser' piece and they don't wish to 'waste' wallspace on it's public display?

My largest concerns are what is done with the private collector's items upon his/her passing... Do the children, the estate, care about the items? A good old fashioned estate sale is fine. For larger more valuable collections, perhaps a museum donation (and likely headed to the 'archives' aka the basement). But I've seen too many dumpsters with artifacts I would have liked to own now damaged and laying amongst the polyester clothing, crushed by the pieces of drywall and commonly used household pots and pans -- with a fine layer of liquid from some punctured bottle or another... Truly sad.

So not only do I ask you, "Who should own valuable items?" but "How do you ensure their survival after your own passing?"