Mac,
Your points re TOC (I assume you're pointing out that many frustrations can and do arise) are duly noted. Please feel free to exile yourself in the interests of the greater good. Less access would certainly speed rounds up for the select band of wealthy locals that could afford millionaires' golf. I jest. No offence intended I assure you.
Confession time: I've never been to Muirfield and based my comments re Muirfield on information generally available rather than, I must admit, first hand experience. I can however comment on the fact that, as a golfer in the south of England, places such as Sunningdale, The Berkshire, Royal St. George's, Royal Cinque Ports (the list could go on and on) sensibly, in my opinion, balance the needs of the membership with overall consideration for fellow golfers. All of these courses discriminate, but only by way of requiring a golfer to, in principle at least, produce a handicap certificate to confirm their ability to play the course without inconveniencing others. The result of this selective openness is, in my experience, beneficial to all parties. I recently played at Liphook with a friend and was approached by a member in the bar afterwards, a complete stranger to us, who was genuinely happy to have us experience his course and to listen to our positive feedback. Having grown up just thirty miles from the course but, shamefully, never having visited, that one members' attitude cemented my already positive feelings and ensured the club will continue to receive a small slice of my money for years to come. Then again, having never been to a course thirty miles down the road, let alone crossed the Atlantic to play golf, perhaps I should be excluded from such a place. Come to think of it, Mac, perhaps such courses should only admit foreign visitors that are able to pay in 'golf miles' with supporting documentation required from at least twenty renowned U.S course before being allowed to board a plane for these shores. I assume you'd be in favour of a reciprocal agreement at Seminole, thus keeping out anyone that apparently hadn't made enough effort. Such people would more than likely have lame everyman excuses such as sacrificing their golf in order to cover a child's university fees or such like.
Regarding my club, the club isn't even slightly selective in that handicap is not a prerequisite to playing. The net outcome is far from perfect. An excessively busy golf course and limited knowledge of etiquette leads to tensions between the membership and visitors. Last month I had to insist a visitor find some trousers. He was quite upset that his jeans were not deemed acceptable! As the course is part of a chain that relates solely to profit, the company continually walks a fine line between maximising profits from visitors and keeping current members from walking out. Hopefully, after a seventeen year absence because of my living elsewhere, I'll be able to rejoin my beloved Hayling before too long, which operates a visitors policy akin to that of the aforementioned sand belt and links courses but, until then, in response to your question, what would I change where I currently am? Well, the following:
1) Apply handicap certification requirements. This for me is the one fundamentally essential requirement for play. With this criteria satisfied you can be reasonably happy that you haven't just let a problem loose on the course. If you're not yet of a standard to play to a given handicap then a public course will suit you just fine and you will have something to aspire to that isn't dependant principally on socioeconomic status. Of course you have to be able to meet the green fee but, subject to that, your access is governed primarily by what you know, rather than who.
2) Ensure all new members are taken out by a trusted member and/or committee member and educated in the ways of golf course etiquette. We all have a responsibility to uphold the spirit of the game and so forth and a hefty wallet is not a veto to such responsibilities.
3) The economic model followed at my club marginalises those that are less financially beneficial in the short term, i.e. junior club members. Once I reached a certain standard as a kid, like all my golfing friends, there were no restrictions in place on our using the course as we so wished and playing in club competitions. I firmly believe a policy of inclusiveness is both beneficial for intergenerational relations and the future well being of the game.
And that really is about it. Nothing complicated or bureaucratically time consuming.
Ultimately, this is of course just conjecture. I firmly belief in the benefits of an open policy towards visitors but equally believe clubs should be free to run themselves as they see fit, save for racial or gender discrimination. I will always defend golf courses from unnecessary interference, but remain free to disagree with the policies some adopt.